203 
bring into view. But in this respect philosophy (the science of principles) 
is not fundamentally different from any other science of real things, in 
which, as is well known, there is always a combination of demonstrated fact 
with mere theory, and in which, too, the endeavour is constantly made, as 
in metaphysics, to reduce the limits of the latter, and extend the boundaries 
of the former. Now Christianity and the Bible involve a philosophy of 
things, which they assume rather than demonstrate. Yet they appeal with 
wonderful power to all that is best and truest in our natures. This is an 
experimental and powerful evidence of the truth of the underlying philo- 
sophy, or “.metaphysics,” of Christianity. Far from denying the possibility 
of philosophy, and its fundamental rank in the realm of human sciences, 
we ought, therefore, surely to unite in endeavouring to show, arguing on the 
ground of pure philosophy, that the philosophy (metaphysics) of Christianity, 
which I have termed Christian idealism, is not only defensible, but is the 
only philosophy which will fully account for all things and for all special 
sciences. Again, none can fail to be aware of the extensive role which the 
doctrine of the relativity of human knowledge has played in modern times ; 
and that, too, in the writings of thinkers of the most opposite schools. Now, 
whatever may be thought of the doctrine in its application to other spheres 
of science, none, I imagine, will deny that all of our so-called positive 
science is relative. It is the science of the phenomenal, of things as they 
appear to us through the nerves, without reference to their ultimate causes 
and original and true nature. And yet we must believe that there are such 
causes ; that something real underlies or causes the relative, the phenomenal. 
Now, to learn what is the nature of reality and what are its laws, there is 
no other method than the metaphysical one, which is founded on self- 
consciousness, knowledge of the true, rational, ideal self, and of the con- 
ditions of knowledge. This method is not dogmatic, or purely deductive. 
It is founded on self-observation, on an analysis of the necessary conditions 
of cognition, and is confirmed by a broad and never-ending induction, 
resting upon the study of the broad universe, which is found to be every- 
where illumined by the light of intelligence — the element of man’s own 
self-conscious life. 
The error of scientific men too generally is, that they identify the results 
of their investigations in the region of the phenomenal with knowledge of 
the real. All positive science which is duly confirmed by observation, com- 
parison, experiment, is to be accepted as true. But this true science of 
the phenomenal is not to be confounded with science of the truly real, or of 
the true cause, the underlying truth of the phenomenal. 
I made no use of scriptural arguments, since, had I done so, I should have 
begged the question which I wished to prove. He who accepts Holy 
Scripture and Christianity admits, necessarily, the doctrines of God’s 
existence, of creation, of Providence, and of the soul’s immortality. He 
admits, therefore, that nature is controlled by and has its origin in 
intelligence. But my paper was designed to aid those who deny or honestly 
feel that they cannot intelligently admit the philosophical truth of the 
