rests on those below.

87

of humanity, this, which proceeds according to its own laws, is subject no less in due measure to all the laws which regulate individual existence. So too it is with the science of morality which deals with the highest problems of social and personal life as they are conditioned by the circumstances of our present existence. So too it is at last with Theology This carries us indeed into a higher order. It has facts and laws of its own; but these are underlaid by all the other laws which determine our powers of observation and our relation to one another and to the order in which we live.

In this universal principle we have the answer to our third question. Theology has Truths of which no other science can judge: but though the fulness of these truths belongs exclusively to Theology, still Theology does not deal with them as supramundane from their divine side, but so far as they are appreciable under the conditions of our present existence, so far as they are operative in the many phases of our actual experience. They are in all respects relative to the order which is opened to our inquiry and observation, and connect this with an order into which we cannot ourselves penetrate. They treat of the infinite reconciled to the finite and

88

All Sciences in due measure

not of the infinite in the abstract, of GOD united with man, and not of GOD in Himself. It is therefore evident that the apprehension of the Christian revelation, as a revelation, presupposes an evergrowing acquaintance with that form of being in and through which it is given. The facts of revelation do not in themselves and cannot constitute a theory of the external world, so far as it is offered to us for investigation by our present powers, but they connect such a theory, which is the final goal of all intellectual effort, with that which is unseen and eternal. Step by step we come to know better the constitution of man, the laws of society, the interdependence of the parts of the material universe; and exactly as we advance in this knowledge, we can understand with surer confidence and deeper insight the import of the revelation made known to us in the Life of Christ, and in the mission of the Holy Spirit, whereby man and society and the universe are placed in a living union with GOD. And thus all the knowledge which we can gain of the finite, all the knowledge which we can gain of man, extends and illuminates our knowledge of GOD, Who has been made known to us through the finite and in the Person of Him Who was perfect Man. Nothing therefore which enlarges our acquaintance with creation in its widest sense can be

minister to Theology.

89

indifferent to the Theologian: to him every access of truth is, in a secondary sense, a revelation; or to the Christian, more exactly, a comment on the one absolute revelation. So it is that Theology becomes the soul of Religion. Theology is a science and Religion is the fulness of life. Theology is the crown of all the sciences, and Religion is the synthesis of all.

But, as I have already said, the method of each subsidiary science must be used only so far as it is applicable. Physics will lead us to a certain point: physiology will carry us yet further: history will carry us still onwards: revelation will add that element of infinity to knowledge which gives characteristic permanence to every work and thought. Each science is supreme within its own domain. But no science can arrogate to itself the exclusive possession of certainty or Truth. Nor does it appear that there is any virtue in the power of vivid illustration which belongs to Physics, for example, such as to distinguish physical conclusions as certain, when compared with the conclusions of ethics or theology. It is rather narrowness than precision of thought which confines the word knowledge to the facts which we reach in a particular way; and the student seems to wilfully abridge his heritage who

90

Usurpation of alien ground

pronounces all that 'unknowable' which is not accessible by one kind of machinery.

Each science, I repeat, is supreme within its own domain; but it has no sovereign authority beyond it. The certainty which man can obtain and by which he lives is manifold in kind and corresponds with each separate region of phenomena. There is no one method of obtaining Truth: there is no one universal test of Truth.

No process can lead to a complete result in a different order from that to which it properly belongs. No conclusion from the science of matter or of life can (as far as I can see) establish any conclusion as to a point in morals or theology and conversely. A physical law will help us to present to our minds more distinctly a spiritual fact a spiritual fact will illuminate the relations of a physical law to the moral order of the universe; but the two are absolutely distinct in their nature and in their sphere.

At the same time from the inherent constitution of the hierarchy of Truths there is always a serious danger lest a method which happens to be eminently clear and dominant should come to be regarded as absolute and universal. The danger is the greater if the

by scientific methods.

91

method is openly successful in dealing with the phenomena to which it is peculiarly appropriate. In the early and middle ages the popular method of Theology usurped authority over Physics; and now the established methods of Physics or of Biology usurp authority over Theology. As we look back we can see plainly the fatal errors of the past: it is more difficult to see the equally fatal errors which are active about us

now.

And yet in one important respect the present confusion of methods is more perilous than that old confusion which we can at length unhesitatingly condemn. There is more likelihood that a method which is truly applicable in part should be regarded as decisively adequate than that a method wholly inapplicable should continue to be used. And each successive zone of phenomena (so to speak) of greater complexity admits of being treated up to a certain point by the method appropriate to the zone immediately below, because it includes those phenomena as the foundation upon which new data are superadded. In such a case therefore the imperfect treatment is, as far as it goes, sound and attractive, but it is essentially incomplete. The results are defective exactly in that which is