520 INTELLECTUAL SYMBOLISM. 
235. Cudworth says: ‘“‘ No man ever was or can be deceived in taking that for a truth 
which he clearly and distinctly apprehends, but only in assenting to things not clearly ap- 
prehended by him.” The probability of truth may, therefore, reasonably be supposed to 
be in proportion to the clearness and distinctness of apprehension. 
236. Knowledge can extend only so far as our ideas are clear and distinct.* Faith also 
embraces truths dimly perceived.t ‘The dim perceptions of Faith, in which are included 
all the mysteries of religion, cannot be made the groundwork or the fit subject of reason- 
ing.t In our reverent approaches towards the highest mysteries of Being, in our endea- 
vors to ascertain our relations to the Infinite Loving Father, it soon becomes evident that 
there are truths far above our mortal ken,§ and we are compelled to satisfy our longing 
with such dim glimpses and partial disclosures as may be vouchsafed to us individually, or 
as we may find recorded in the undoubted chronicles of Divine Revelation. The authen- 
ticity of a professed revelation is a proper subject for investigation, but after the authen- 
ticity is admitted, Reason can deny the teachings of Faith only by abdicating her own 
throne, which is upheld by other teachings of the same Faith. 
237. No one is ever disposed to question the implicit reliance of the child on the in- 
structions of the parent or teacher in whom he has all confidence. Why should we deny 
* For some excellent historical and critical remarks on clear, distinct, and confused concepts, see Hamilton’s 
Logic, Lect. 1X, X. 
} ‘The evidence of things not seen.” 
{ We may, it is true, properly speak of a “ rational faith,”’ not, however, to imply that its tenets can be either 
proved or disproved by reason, but merely to indicate that we have sufficient reason for holding the faith. For ex- 
ample, reason may be satisfied that the Bible is the infallible record of Divine Revelation, and belief in the teach- 
ings of the Bible then becomes rational faith, But after admitting the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, 
reason has no right to sit in judgment over any of their teachings. 
“Tf there is sufficient evidence on other grounds, to show that the Scripture, in which [any] doctrine is con- 
tained, is a revelation from God, the doctrine itself must be unconditionally received, not as reasonable, nor as 
unreasonable, but as scriptural. If there is not such evidence, the doctrine itself will lack its proper support; but 
the reason which rejects it, is utterly incompetent to substitute any other representation in its place.” Mansel, 
p- 168. 
§ “We are thus taught the salutary lesson, that the capacity of thought is not to be constituted into the mea- 
sure of existence; and are warned from recognizing the domain of our knowledge as necessarily coextensive with 
the horizon of our faith. And by a wonderful revelation we are thus, in the very consciousness of our inability to 
conceive aught above the relative and finite, inspired with a belief in the existence of something unconditioned 
beyond the sphere of all comprehensible reality. . . True, therefore, are the declaratious of a pious philosophy : 
A God understood would be no God at all ;—‘ To think that God is, as we can think Him to be, is blasphemy.’ 
The Divinity, in a certain sense, is revealed ; in a certain sense is concealed: He is at once known and unknown.” 
Hamilton, Discussions, p. 22. ‘‘Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto 
perfection?” Job 11:7. 
