culture and intelligence should take up a volume of what is called " Speculative Theology," (that is, theology presented in the forms of the speculative philosophy,) he would not understand a page and would hardly understand a sentence. He could not tell whether the theology which it proposed to present was Christianity or Buddhism. Or, at best, he would find a few drops of Biblical truth so diluted by floods of human speculation that the most delicate of chemical tests would fail to detect the divine element.
Attempts to do this Futile.
All such attempts are futile. The empirical proof of this is, that no such attempt has ever succeeded. The experiment has been made hundreds of times, and always with the same result. Where are now the philosophical expositions and vindications of Scripture doctrines by the Platonizing fathers ; by the School- men ; by the Cartesians ; by the Leibnitzians ? What power over the reason, the conscience, or the life, has any of the specu lative systems of our day ? Who, beyond the devotees of the systems which they represent, understand or adopt the theology of Daub, of Marheinecke, of Lange, and others ? Strauss, there- fore, is right when he repudiates all these vain attempts to rec- oncile Christianity with philosophy, or to give a form to Chris- tian doctrine which satisfies the philosophical thinker.1
But apart from this argument from experience, the assump- tion is preposterous that the feeble intellect of man can explain, and from its own resources, vindicate and prove the deep things of God. An infant might as well undertake to expound New- ton's " Principia." If there are mysteries in nature, in every blade of grass, in the insect, in the body and in the soul of man, there must be mysteries in religion. The Bible and our con- sciousness teach us that God is incomprehensible, and his ways past finding out ; that we cannot explain either his nature or his acts ; we know not how he creates, upholds, and governs without interfering with the nature of his creatures ; how there can be three persons in the Godhead ; how in the one person of Christ there can be two intelligences and two wills ; how the Spirit in- spires, renews, sanctifies, or comforts. It belongs to the " self- deifying " class of philosophers to presume to know all that God .knows, and to banish the incomprehensible from the religion which he has revealed. " To the school of Hegel," says Bret-
1 See above, p. 58.
78 PART ID. Ch. XVI. -faith.
Schneider, "there are mysteries in religion only for those who have not raised themselves to the Hegelian grade of knowledge. For the latter all is clear ; all is knowledge ; and Christianity is the solution, and therefore the revelation of all mysteries."1 This may be consistent in those who hold that man is God in the highest form of his existence, and the philosopher the highest style of man. Such an assertion, however, by whomsoever it may be made, is the insanity of presumption.
May what is True in Religion be False m Philosophy t A fourth question included in this general subject is, Whether there is or may be a real conflict between the truths of reason and those of revelation ? Whether that which is true in religion may be false in philosophy ? To this question different answers have been given.
The Fathers on this Question,
First, while the Greek fathers were disposed to bring religion and philosophy into harmony, by giving a philosophical form to Christian doctrines, the Latins were inclined to represent the two as irreconcilable. " What," asks Tertullian, " has Athens to do with Jerusalem ? The academy with the Church ? What have heretics to do with Christians ? Our instruction is from the porch of Solomon, who himself taught that the Lord was to be
sought in the simplicity of the heart We need no seeking
for truth after Christ ; no research after the Gospel. When we believe, we desire nothing beyond faith, because we believe that
there is nothing else we should do To know nothing
beyond is to know all things."2 He went so far as to say, " Prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est ; .... certum est, quia impossible est." 8 Without going to this extreme, the the- ologians of the Latin Church, those of them at least most zealous
Systematische Entwickelung, § 29, 4th edit. Leipzig, 1841, p. 163.
« De Prascriptionibus adversus Easreticos, cap. 7, 8, 14, Works, Paris, 1608 (t. iii.), p. 831: "Quid ergo Athenis et Hierosolymis ? quid Academiae et Ecclesiae? quid haereti- ci8 et Christianis? Nostra institutio de porticu Solomonis est, qui et ipse tradiderat: Dominum in simplicitate cordis esse quaerendum. Viderint qui Stoicum, et Platonicum, et Dialecticum, Christianissimum protulerunt. Nobis curiositate opus non est post Christum Jesum, nee inquisitione post Evangelium. Cum crcdimus, nihil desideramus ultra credere.
Hoc enim prius credimus, non esse quod ultra credere debeamus Cedat curiositas
fidei, cedat gloria saluti. Certe ant non obstrepant, aut quiescant adversus regulam. Nihil ultra scire, omnia scire est."
* De Came Christi, cap. 5, Works (t. iii.), p. 555: "Natus est Dei filius: non pudet, quia pudendum est. Et mortuus est Dei filius: prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est Et sepultus, resurrexit: certum est, quia impossibile est."