THE STABILITY OF TRUTH. 341 
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 
understood by us, but in it we find no 
chance movement, “no variableness nor 
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 
The infinite 
understanding. . 
