Page:Philosophical Review Volume 1.djvu/686

670 Even though we should assume the correctness of Dr. Rolfes's interpretation on this point, what warrant have we for the assertion that Aristotle taught a creatio ex nihilo, or at any rate came very near it? If God is the end of all finite existence, then, the writer maintains, simple logic demands that he be the originator of everything finite. But philosophers do not invariably draw the conclusions which may seem to some to be simple and natural. What right has the interpreter to make these deductions himself? Dr. Rolfes shoots beyond his mark in endeavoring to elaborate a system which he sets out to explain. Again, God is the principle of all things,, says Aristotle, ergo the creator of all things, adds Dr. Rolfes. I know of no logic simple enough to render such a conclusion absolutely necessary. Again, Aristotle's conception of the principles of material essence logically demands the notion of creation. Form gives to matter its real existence. Hence the originator of the form is also the cause of matter (pp. 66–78). Aristotle nowhere draws these conclusions, as the author himself confesses, so this dallying with premises is "love's labor lost." Had he drawn them, he would have contradicted a fundamental principle of his philosophy, according to which the world is eternal.

The same general objections may be urged against the remaining portions of the book. The attempt to make Aristotle's thought square with Christian theology renders the application of force necessary at times. We except the exposition of the ethical system, which is not subjected to this heroic treatment and which presents, therefore, a clear and unbiased account of the philosopher's views.

.

This little volume is pathetically suggestive. It is a collection of brief notes in which, without much reasoning or any consideration of alternative views, the author sums up his opinions on a variety of ethical questions, many of them fundamental. In the Introductory Note Dr. McCosh mentions the titles of his various philosophical works. He would like still to write a brief treatise on æsthetics. But the prospect of his writing it is slight: "It is doubtful if advancing age will admit of my doing more." May the memory of past activity mingle its cheer with the shadows of the thick years which are closing in round this honored and honorable career!

Our Moral Nature is not a philosophical treatise; it is rather a series of loosely connected talks given by a good man and an orthodox