the constitution of their nature do believe, can be proved to be false. There is thus an irreconcilable conflict between our intel- lectual and moral nature. But as, according to the idealist, reason forces us to the conclusion that the external world does not exist, while, nevertheless, it is safe and proper to act on the assumption that it is, and is what it appears to be ; so, according to Hamil- ton, it is not only safe, but obligatory on us to act on the assump- tion that God is a person, although infinite, while our reason demonstrates that an infinite person is a contradiction. The con- flict between reason and faith is avowed, while the obligation of faith on the testimony of our moral and religious nature and of the Word of God is affirmed. This point has been already dis- cussed.
The View of Speculative Philosophers.
Thirdly, we note the view taken by the speculative philoso- phers. They, too, maintain that reason demonstrates the doc- trines of revelation and even of natural religion to be false. But they do not recognize their obligation to receive them as objects of faith. Being contrary to reason, those doctrines are false, and being false, they are, by enlightened men, to be rejected. If any cling to them as a matter of feeling, they are to be allowed to do so, but they must renounce all claim to philosophic insight.
May the Objects of Faith be above^ and yet not against Reason?
A fifth question is, Whether the objects of faith may be above, and yet not contrary to reason ? The answer to this question is to be in the affirmative, for the distinction implied is sound and almost universally admitted. What is above reason is simply incomprehensible. What is against reason is impossible. It is contrary to reason that contradictions should be true ; that a part should be greater than the whole ; that a thing should be and not be at the same time ; that right should be wrong and wrong right. It is incomprehensible how matter attracts matter ; how the mind acts on the body, and the body on the mind. The distinction between the incomprehensible and the impossible, is therefore plain and admitted. And the distinction between what is above reason, and what is against reason, is equally obvious and just. The great body of Christian theologians have ever taken the ground that the doctrines of the Bible are not contrary to reason, although above it. That is, they are matters of faith to be received on the authority of God, and not because they can be either understood or proved. As it is incomprehensible how a
82 PART IE. Ch. XVI. — faith.
soul and body can be united in one conscious life ; so it is incom- prehensible how a divine and human nature can be united in one person in Christ. Neither is impossible, and therefore neither is contrary to reason. We know the one fact from consciousness ; we believe the other on the testimony of God. It is impossible, and therefore contrary to reason, that three should be one. But it is not impossible that the same numerical essence should sub- sist in three distinct persons. Kealists tell us that humanity, as one numerical essence, subsists in all the millions of human individuals. Thomas Aquinas takes the true ground when he says : " Ea quae sunt supra naturam, sola fide tenemus. Quod autem credimus, auctoritati debemus. Unde in omnibus asserendis sequi debemus naturam rerum, praeter ea, quae auctoritate divina traduntur, quae sunt supra naturam." * " Quae igitur fidei sunt, non sunt tentanda probare nisi per auctoritates his, qui auctoritates suscipiunt. Apud alios vero sufficit defendere non esse impossibile quod praedicat fides." 2 " Quidquid in aliis scientiis invenitur veritati hujus scien- tiae [sacrae doctrinae] repugnans, totum condemnatur ut falsum." 3
The Objects of Faith are consistent with Reason. While, therefore, the objects of faith as revealed in the Bible, are not truths of the reason, i. e., which the human reason can discover, or comprehend, or demonstrate, they are, nevertheless, perfectly consistent with reason. They involve no contradictions or absurdities ; nothing impossible, nothing inconsistent with the intuitions either of the intellect or of the conscience ; nothing in- consistent with any well established truth, whether of the exter- nal world or of the world of mind. On the contrary, the contents of the Bible, so far as they relate to things within the legitimate domain of human knowledge, are found to be consistent, and must be consistent, with all we certainly know from other sources than a divine revelation. All that the Scriptures teach concerning the external world accords with the facts of experience. They do not teach that the earth is a plain ; that it is stationary in space ; that the sun revolves around it. On the other hand, they do teach that God made all plants and animals, each after its own kind ; and, accordingly, all experience shows that species are im- mutable. All the anthropological doctrines of the Bible agree with what we know of man from consciousness and observation. The Bible teaches that God made of one blood aU nations which dwell on the face of the earth. We accordingly find that aU the
1 8™ma, i. qusest. xcix. art. 1, edit Cologne, 1640, p. 185, a. Ilnd. qu«8t. xxxii. art. 1, p. 64, a. 8 Und. qusest. i. art. 6, p. 2, b.