74 REV. A. R. WHATELY^ . ON THE DEMAND 



philosophers. The lecturer had shown the demand existed, and 

 this was the best answer to those who did not see the need for 

 a Christian Philosophy. Nothing could stifle it, it must be 

 recognised. We cannot rule it out because a Christian Philosophy- 

 was not contemplated by Christ. We may say that no one ever 

 met the demand better than St. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans ; 

 he gives there a philosophical account of sin and redemption. I 

 concur as to the importance of giving full value to collective as well 

 as individual experience. In reply to Bishop Thornton's question, 

 I may say these are found in the Creeds, the confessions of 

 St. Augustine and in the Pilgrim's Progress, they are the common 

 property of Christendom, in such hymns too as the " Rock of Ages." 

 These express corporate intuitions of Christian men, and in 

 constructing a Christian Philosophy we must take these into 

 account as well as those of the individual. 



The Lecturer. — I think a written reply will be more satisfactory 

 than the mere reproduction of my verbal reply. For the sake of 

 brevity I must confine my attention to opponents. I would just 

 thank Dr. Irving and Mr. Marston for their very kind personal 

 references, and identify myself with Mr. Marston's answer to 

 Bishop Thornton's question. 



It may be well to emphasise the fact that my paper is necessarily 

 a mere fragment and suffers accordingly. All that it contains is 

 based on conviction formed and defined in the course of years of 

 reading and thought, and not the mere throwing out of a few 

 suggestions. I ask that it be read in that spirit. 



My dissent from Mr. Schwartz's remarks is so absolute and 

 radical that it is almost a difficulty to know where to begin. The 

 idea that he and those he quotes entertain of what philosophy is, 

 is hopelessly narrow. Not only so, but all that he says about 

 dogmatic theology on the one hand and philosophy on the other is 

 answered in the main argument of my paper, which he ignores. 

 Whatever questions may be raised as to the possibility or necessary 

 conditions of a Christian Philosophy, it is obviously futile to 

 bring charges against it which are excluded ex hypothesi. That 

 he should bring forward Mr. Malloch's remark about *' the 

 metaphysician's claim to transcend facts," alone shows that the 

 essence of my contention has been missed. But even as to 

 philosophy in general, the attitude he represents is such that I 



