THE STABILITY OF TRUTH. 34I 



outside of man and not within him. In this objective 

 universe which lies outside ourselves we find " the cease- 

 less flow of force and the rational intelligence that per- 

 vades it." No part of it can be fully 



The infinite understood by us, but in it we find no 



understanding. 



chance movement, "no variableness tior 



shadow of turning." That such a universe exists seems 



to demand some intelligence capable of understanding 



it, of stating its properties in terms of absolute truth, 



as distinguished from those of human experience. Only 



an Infinite Being can be conceived as doing this, hence 



such knowledge must enter into our conception of the 



Infinite Being, whatever may be our theology in other 



respects ; for, to know any object or phenomenon in 



its fulness, "all in all," "we should know what God 



is and man is." 



It is therefore no reproach to human science that it 



deals with human relations, not with absolute truths. 



" The ultimate truths of science," Dr. Schurman has 



said, "rest on the same basis as the ultimate truths 



of philosophy " — that is, on a basis that transcends 



human experience. This is true, for science has no 



" ultimate truths." There are none known to man. 



"The perfect truth," says Lessing, "is but for Thee 



alone." With ultimate truths human philosophy tries 



in some fashion to deal. To look at the universe in 



some degree through the eyes of God is the aim of 



philosophy. In its aim it is most noble. Its efforts are 



a source of strength in the conduct of human life. But 



its conclusions are not truth. They range from the 



puerile to the incomprehensible, and only science, that 



is, "common sense," can distinguish the two. For this 



reason, just in proportion as philosophy is successful, 



it is unfit to serve as a basis of human action. Human 



knowledge and action have human limitations. The 

 24 



