same individual, are, properly speaking, like the two faces of the god Janus, of which the one looks in exactly the opposite direction to the other; and very soon the saying of Bayle is endorsed : "We must then necessarily choose between Philosophy and the Gospel." Yet, let it be honestly confessed, however easily comprehensible I may esteem such an issue of the proposed vote in the case of not a few, I should deeply deplore the fact that this should have to remain the last word on the subject, after the conflict of ages. Whether philosophy would really be the gainer, in being thus for ever withdrawn from the influence of faith, we have not now to decide. But certainly, in our estimation at least, such a divorce would be for theological science nothing less than a sentence of death. Precisely this is for us its glory, that the two things which, according to Strauss, stand and must stand irreconcilably opposed, in reality interpenetrate, and are diffused through each other, and, in the domain of the inner life, are dissolved into a higher unity. Not to believe alone, but also to know; not to know alone, but also to believe, is the priest in this temple called. Theology, and notably our Christian Theology, is a science, yea truly, science in the highest sense of the word; but it is at the same time,-and that is perhaps but too little comprehended,-a, or let me rather say, the, science of faith. The science of faith. So much has been frequently adduced from different points of view, for and against such a conception, that certainly the attempt more fully to explain our opinion on this subject, and, so far as necessary, to defend it, will not be regarded with disfavour. Let me, then, state in what sense, with what justice, and for what reasons we regard Theology as such. When we speak of Christian Theology as the science of faith, we do not mean a science of which what we believe (the truth revealed to faith, the fides que creditur) is the object-as when, eg, we speak of the science of the Beautiful, or the science of Nature; but we speak of a science which springs from faith, of which faith is thus the source and root, or, if you will, the principle and starting-point. In making mention of faith, we are thinking definitely of that Christian faith, of which God's own saving revelation is the basis, and the living Christ the personal centre. We understand that faith here in all its fulness and power, as it is presented in Scripture in manifold ways, and, to mention no others, is described with an accuracy not to be surpassed in the twenty-first answer of the Heidelberg Catechism. * We emphatically request that this further definition, which is at the same time a limitation, may not be lost sight of. Not the abstract philosophic question as to the connection and difference between believing and knowing, regarded only in general, is here to occupy us; but the real point of inquiry with us is, whether the true Christian can, by the way of living faith in the Lord, come to a knowledge and certainty of God and Divine things, which, in a natural sense and on sufficient grounds, may bear the name of science. The answer to the question thus put will be felt to depend entirely on another, namely, the signification of the word science. If, in connection therewith, we think exclusively or principally of the so-called “sciences exactes,” and understand by science an objectively certain knowledge of that which is so incontestably evident as to be doubted by no one of sound senses, then we are the first to admit that the way of faith cannot possibly lead to such a science. But it appears to us, with all deference, that the above-mentioned definition confines the idea of science within too narrow limits, and that although it is unquestionably applicable to the sciences of nature, it necessarily runs the risk of being more or less unfair in its application to those of mind. Is there not much in the domain of Psychology and Morals, of Jurisprudence and Philosophy, that falls not within the cadre of the aforesaid conception, and which is none the less, in the opinion of all, philosophically established? We may thus be allowed to extend somewhat farther the limits of the domain of science, and to understand by it, in "Genuine faith is not only a certain knowledge, whereby I firmly assent to all which God has revealed to us; but also a sure confidence, which the Holy Spirit works in my heart through the Gospel, that not only to others but also to me, forgiveness of sin and everlasting righteousness and blessings are given of God, out of pure grace, for the alone merits of Christ." general, a totality of pure, well-founded, and well-ordered knowledge, in whatever way attained to. That which I have come to know by the process of logical reasoning, I know undoubtedly in an entirely different way from that which I contemplate with my own eyes; and yet I know it not less really and certainly. That man, by the way of perception-that of the senses and that of the mind-and the reasoning based upon his observations, can come to an objectively certain knowledge of visible and finite things, is, I believe, doubted by none whom I address. But the question is, whether man can rise also by another way, by the way of faith, to an acquaintance with and knowledge of things unseen, which-regard being always had to the wholly unique nature both of that domain and of that knowledge-with no less justice may bear the name of science (although always of the science of faith), than that which is elsewhere on good grounds recognised and prized as science. And to this question we do not hesitate, even after a renewed consideration of serious objections, to render an affirmative answer.* The fact is in itself, in our estimation, of no small significance, that the ordinary language of Scripture and of the Church is rather favourable to our point of view than opposed to it. While God, according to the word of the Old Testament (1 Kings, viii. 12), dwells in an impenetrable darkness, even here it is promised as one of the greatest blessings of the new day of grace, that all should know the Lord and be taught of Him. According to the word of Jesus Himself, it is granted to His disciples, in distinction from the multitude, to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God (yv@vai), and to understand the truth which makes them free. To them, as to the little ones, is revealed, and on that account no longer unknown or uncertain, that which is hidden from those in their own estima *The author then enters into reasons for a due distinction between the knowing of the exact sciences and the believing of faith, which are here necessarily omitted for want of space. Jer. xxxi. 31-34; Isa. liv. 13. tion wise and prudent.* From a Peter we accordingly hear the language: "We have believed and known (éyvókaμev) that thou art the Holy One of God." + From a John the assurance to his fellow-believers: "Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and know all things."‡ And again: "These things have I written unto you that believe, that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye (precisely in consequence of this knowledge, so much the more firmly) may believe in the name of the Son of God." He at least, would hardly have assented, if one of his readers had answered him: "Believing cannot lead up to knowing, and knowing to believing." But just as little would Paul have done this, he the most philosophic of all the Apostles, as he has been, not without reason, termed. That Paul ascribes even to man out of Christ a certain measure of that which we usually term a natural knowledge of God, § can here only be noticed in passing. But, that which is here of primary importance, -he knows and displays a knowledge in the revealed mystery of Christ, which he extols without reserve as the highest science.|| In this Christ are for him hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; ¶ and while, in the light thereof, he proclaims a relentless warfare against "all the wisdom of this world," ** he hails as a priceless Charisma the Christian gnosis,tt which he repeatedly opposes to the false science and philosophy of the day. ‡‡ Increase in all wisdom and spiritual understanding is the task which he constantly sets before Christians; §§ yea, the whole conflict of the apostolic and post-apostolic age, of which, in our opinion, the Second Epistle of Peter and that of Jude bear testimony, may be termed an unceasing struggle, not between believing and knowing, but between a believing and an unbelieving science. Wholly in harmony with Paul, and moreover deeply Christian, *Matt. xi. 25; xvi. 17. 1 John ii. 20, 27; v. 13. ↑ John vi. 69. § Rom. i. 19, 20; ii. 14, 15. Comp. Acts xiv. 17. Eph. iii. 4; 1 Cor. ii. 2. ** I Cor. i. 18-21 ;iii. 18-20. ‡‡ Col. ii. 8.; 1 Tim. vi. 20. tt Col. ii. 3. Cor. xii. 8; xiii 2. §§ Phil. i. 9, 10; Col. i. 9, 10. is the suggestive word of the Epistle to the Hebrews: "Through faith we understand" (πioтe vooûμev), preceded by the wellknown striking description of faith: "Faith is a firm confidence (inóσraris) of that which one hopes for, an inner certainty (leyxos) of that which one sees not." It is true, we cannot, in connection with either of these places, think of that which is now termed theoretical science in the strictest sense of the word; but yet the experimental and practical knowledge and certainty, indicated in such-like utterances, is and remains none the less true knowledge, and indeed a knowledge which is born of faith. If also, in the language of Holy Scripture, in connection with methodological questions like these, no strictly philosophic exactness is to be looked for, thus much is for me incontestably certain, that a sharp separation between believing and knowing is just as little in the spirit of our Lord as in that of His Apostles. We cannot possibly here, where there is so much self-consistency, think either of an accidental coincidence of expression, or of an entire inaccuracy of conception; and in vain would any one, we think, look for adhesion from Jesus or His first witnesses to the assertion with regard to spiritual things: "If one believes something, then one does not know it." If we now extend the historic line yet further, it very soon becomes apparent that we meet with the same language, nay, with the same fundamental conception, in the case of the most illustrious men of the Church in earlier and later ages. While, even in the heathen world, the priests were tacitly regarded as the bearers of a higher wisdom; while the secret of this wisdom was wont to be sought in the bosom of the sacred mysteries; while philosophers like Plato journeyed expressly to the East, in order, by a study of religions, to come to a deeper knowledge of God and Divine things, the earliest and best Fathers of the Church, on the other hand, we hear speak as those for whose vision the veil was fallen, and who now in a higher light contemplate the truth unobscured. Think of that which Justin Heb. xi. 3. Comp. ver. I. |