Year: 1875

The THEIsrIC CONCEPTION OF THE Wo RID: an es'


say in Opposition to Certain Tendencies Of Mol


ern Thought By B. F. Cocker, d. D., L. d.


Professor Of Mental and Moral Philosophy In the


University Of Michigan: Author of "Christianity


and Greek Philosophy For sale by Loring,


Short & Harmon.


In the preface to this work the author states
that it was announced in his former publica-
tion as nearly ready for the press under the
title "Christianity and Modern Thought" The
reason he gives tor delaying the publication.
and for changing the title will serve to show
the mind of the author, his attitude toward
the subject of his work and the probable scope
and competency of his treatment of modern
questions. He says he had desired Ito await
the elimination among class OF self-styled
advanced thinkers of what they have been
pleased to call the tendency of modern
thought; no extraordinaryssagacity was needed
to foreeee the issue. or to predict that 1t must
soon be reached. Dstrust of super
natural revelation, and denial of all authorit


to the teaching of the sacred scriptures, has
been succeeded by doubt of the existence OF
God in the proper import of that sacred name


The issue now so sharply and clearly
defined between God and no God has deter
mined change in the plan of our work, and
justifes, we trust, the attempt We have made
to restate and defend 'The Theistic Conception
of the World"


The reader of this preface will foresee the
theological coloring of the pages which follow;
and perhaps a few readers will be prepared to
follow with implicit trust ths augmentation o I
one who has already seen the elimination O.
the tendency of modern thought. and, moreov-
err had the sagacity to anticipate that it would
culminate in precisely that issue which would
bring his common place book into requisltion.


1t is certainly a disadvantage to o philoso :
pher to be also professor of philosophy; the
original working of his own mind must be
thwarted and confused by the pedagogical deal


ing IN PHILOSOPHERS. But on the other hand, =
professorship provides certain facilities to one
who, not being philosopher, attempts to write
a philosophical work; it gives him something
to say. If what he says is not his own 1t Is all
the more eoifying to the reader. DR.. Cocker
appears to be philosopher without the p5ilo-
sophie endowment. He would probably dis
claim for himself that title not in modesty, but
in regard to propriety and self-respect; for he
puts the philosopher in antithesis to the Chris
tian; he says ito the Christian as well as to the
philosopher" and since every page of his work
declares his belief in Christianity we must pre-
sumo that he would not on any account be ie.
gsrded as \ philosopher. And it is well ne wiii
not. But-what is more importantly tnis Ia'se
antithesis he does injustice to Christianity. IL
is not true as matter of fact that there Is an
tasonism between philosophy and Chrlstiani'y.
| There are numerous witnesses to the iacs tnat
one may be philosopher and Christian bellev-
er, notwithstanding. 1t must however, be con-
ceded as doubtful whether Christian, as our
author aud many others understand the word,
can ever be a philosopher. There appears to
be special theological incapacity for sound
! thinking, paradoxical incapacity due to