Our author makes a striking reply to the common assertion that

"THEOLOGY IS NOT A PROGRESSIVE SCIENCE."

It may, however, be retrogressive; and it is sure to repay flippant

neglect by lending its empty space to mean delusions. To its great

problems _some_ answer will always be attempted; and there is much to

choose between the solutions, however imperfect, found by reverential

wisdom, and the degrading falsehoods tendered in reply by the

indifferent and superficial. Even in their failures, there is a vast

difference between the explorings of the seeing and the blind. We deny,

however, that Christian theology can assume any aspect of failure,

except to those who use a false measure of success. It is not in the

nature of religion, of poetry, of art, to exhibit the kind of progress

that belongs to physical science. They differ from it in seeking, not

the _phenomena_ of the universe, but its _essence_,--not its laws of

change, but its eternal meanings,--not outward nature, in short, except

as expressive of the inner thought of God; and being thus intent upon

the enduring spirit and very ground of things, they cannot grow by

numerical accretion of facts and exacter registration of successions.

They are the product, not of the patient sense and comparing

intelligence which are always at hand, but of a deeper and finer

insight, changing with the atmosphere of the affections and will.

Instead of looking, therefore, for perpetual advance of discovery in

theology, we should naturally expect an ebb and flow of light, answering

to the moral condition of men's minds; and may be content if the divine

truth, lost in the dulness of a material age, clears itself into fresh

forms with the returning breath of a better time.

Most readers will find suggestions of great freshness in the passage

next cited:--

Studies of Christianity; Or, Timely Thoughts for Religious Thinkers · 第 28 / 72 题