A second important question under the theme of scope or province concerns the relation of theology to philosophy. • That the one is under practical compulsion to enter the domain of the other is apparent upon both rational and his torical grounds. Their tasks are closely related. Philosophy may be defined as an attempt to get at ultimate truth by rational processes. The ology attempts, within limits, the same thing. It undertakes to get at ultimate truth in so far as that truth has religious worth or significance. Theology may enter upon its task with a more positive presumption in favor of written revela tion than that which belongs to the ,philosophical starting-point. Still, if it is to maintain a scien tific character, it cannot take that presumption as a mere matter of course. On the contrary, it must treat the same as a subject for searching inspection. Now this inspection will naturally lead sooner or later to the great problem of the conditions of rational certainty. Thus the in itial task of theology in approving or rating the authority of sacred oracles conducts into a prov ince of philosophical inquiry. And what occurs at this point is repeated at various other points. The development of the deeper themes of the ology involves in general a use of philosophical premises, either metaphysical, psychological or ethical. A veto against such use is impotent. A Tertullian may exclaim, "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there be tween the Academy and the Church?" But be fore the echo of his voice has died away he will be likely to get onto the ground of Athens:and to be borrowing from the Academy or some kindred source. From beginning to end Chris tian history testifies to the tendency of theolog ical construction to utilize philosophical points of view. Among the early Fathers the more speculative were manifestly influenced by the Platonic philosophy, A little later the Neo-Pla tonic philosophy became an appreciable factor in theological thinking, and through the writings of the pseudo-Dionysius was introduced to the thinkers of the mediaeval period. At the crown ing period of mediaeval scholasticism Aristo telianism was decidedly in the ascendant, inso much that Aristotle was often cited under the simple designation of "the philosopher." In the modern period the Cartesian philosophy, the Leibnitz-Wolffian, the Lockian, the Kantian, the Hegelian and others have unmistakably claimed spheres of influence in the theological domain. It appears, therefore, that a discreet choice of philosophical affiliations is the best that the ology can do. It may enter into too close an• alliance with a specific philosophy. It may fail to observe the due balance betvieen a speculative bent and a sane regard for historical data. But it will and must draw largely from the resources of philosophy if it is to be fundamental and comprehensive.
A further question on the scope of theology concerns the relation of this branch to the domain of natural science. That a relation ob tains to which a measure of significance may be attached is undeniable. It is not to be over looked, however, that the field of natural science comes into less extensive contact with theology than does the field of philosophy. In so far as science moves in a physical or sub-human range, it touches upon matters that are of only subor dinate theological import. It may enforce a re vision of the theory of creation which has been read into or elicited from the biblical narrative; but of how small theological consequence is a conclusion on the precise method of creation, so long as God in his absolute supremacy and man in his dignity and worth are left to the con templation! It may enlarge the view of the operation of secondary causes in the production of organic forms, and so may require some modification of the putting of the argument from design; but that involves no challenge to any theological tenet or interest, since the vast range of orderly results in nature must still be seen, as many of the most eminent naturalists confess, to demand ultimately an ordering in telligence. In short a close scrutiny of the sub
ject will reveal that the findings of the physical sciences can neither displace the foundations of the central tenets of theology nor supply foundations to these tenets. Their function is exhausted in modifying one and another peri pheral matter or adjunct of the theological system. Probably the greatest result which has come from that quarter is an offspring of the doctrine of evolution and consists in an en larged tendency of the theological mind to ex pect, in relation to the kingdom of God in the world, tokens of the law of consecution and graduated progress. Undoubtedly the theologian does well to take note of the approved findings of natural science; but large expectations of contributions from that quarter are not likely to be fulfilled. It is in the constitution and experi ences of man, and in the philosophical interpre tation of both the world of nature and of per sonality, that theology must find its principal basis. Among the human experiences that come into the account those which make up the sub stance of sacred history may of course claim a distinct primacy. In other words, the Bible may be rated as the foremost treasury of theo logical data.
Scientific Value and Ranlc.— One and an other system of theology, as actually developed, may he remote from a'scientific character. But intnnsically scientific construction is just as fea sible and appropriate in the field of theology as in any other field. Where a contrary impres sion has obtained it has generally been due to one of three causes. Either the agnostic maxim that religion has the unlcnown for its proper field has been adopted, and in consequence theology, as the theoretical side of religion, has been pictured as devoid of substantial founda tion; or theology has been associated with arbi trary authority; or a strained antithesis between reason and faith has been contemplated.
As respects the maxim which embodies the first of these grounds of objection, it must be pronounced a gratuitous negation of religion. It is a negation of religion, for sheer mystery offers no means of attachment. In the words of Pfleiderer, "a religion of nothing but mystery is an absurdity.'" The maxim is also per fectly gratuitous. As John Fiske has said: °None can deny that religion is the largest and most ubiquitous fact connected with the ex istence of mankind upon earth? Is so vast a department of human experience to be regarded as utterly incompetent to supply any valid grounds of induction? Are the concurring thoughts, aspirations and satisfactions of the elect spirits of the race to be rated as void of all rational suggestions? Is no sure basis of conviction to be found in the illuminated and transcendent consciousness ,of the Christ? Such questions need no formal reply. Theology doubtless has a great border-land of mystery. And so has biology. Indeed it is characteristic of most of the sciences that they impinge upon mystery. Alongside a domain of certainty they include areas which can claim at best only a high degree of probability. On the score of mystery, therefore, no good reason is apparent for expelling theology from scientific fellow ship.