We are living at a time, in the progress of human society, when these conclusions, with which the courageous Kepler startled the learned world of the seventeenth century, have come to be taught as common-places to children in our national elementary schools!—a time when it is generally acknowledged that man possesses no other means for the attainment of truth than his natural intelligence, acting normally, in accordance with its known constitution or observed functions; although it must be admitted the precise nature, number, and power of the intellectual faculties are still matters of controversy, so that, on the most serious subjects-What is Truth ?-how can it be known to be such, or become capable of being verified, or tested, as Truth ?-are enquiries upon which great difference of opinion prevails; wherefore, when we attempt a survey of the field of knowledge in its entirety, we find it distributable into three principal divisions, corresponding not only to apparent differences in knowledge itself, but to the several methods which the mind has pursued in its search after truthmethods which, for our present purpose, are sufficiently denominated the Theological, the Metaphysical, and the Scientific.

mihi sancta Veritas, qui, terram et rotundam, et antipodibus circumhabitatam, et contemptissimæ parvitatis esse, et denique per sidera ferri, salvo Doctorum Ecclesiæ respectu, ex Philosophia demonstro.'-Kepler, De Motibus Stella Martis, ex Observationibus G. N. Tichonis Brahe, fol. Pragæ, 1609. Introductio. The entire scope and argument of this extraordinary treatise show that Philosophia' is used to denote what we now more distinctly term 'Science.'

เ

Note B, p. 46.

Now a question here presents itself-Are these methods of equal authority, or are certain branches of knowledge duly authenticated by one method, whilst certain other branches of knowledge are duly authenticated by another method ?-a question which, even with our present enlightenment, it is perhaps not easy to answer, but towards the solution of which we shall, I think, make some approach whilst we are considering shortly what is the distinguishing, or characteristic, test or standard of truth upon which each of these methods more particularly relies. Considered separately, their several standards or tests may be stated generally as follows. The theological method considers that our most important knowledge is derived from sacred scriptures, or the traditions and writings of holy men of old, either as revealed by God therein, or as plainly deducible by logical inference therefrom; and it considers that life on earth is providentially governed by the will of God, acting in human affairs in the manner so frequently alluded to in such scriptures. That such will is indeed, as to much that takes place on earth, inscrutable, and especially so in reference to that vast amount of existing misery and evil, in the very midst of which we, in this metropolis, may truly say we live and move and have our being;' yet that this Divine Will, however mysteriously manifested, is ever operative for wise and beneficent purposes; and that man himself possesses the means of influencing it in his favour by holiness of life, and by prayer, directly addressed to Deity; and the test or standard of truth, as held by the theological school, is

therefore the will of God, principally made known ́to us, and influenced in the manner I have mentioned.

The metaphysical method1 considers that the test or standard of truth is to be sought for in the human faculties themselves. That real knowledge can only result from studying and analysing our ideas and sensations, and that the test of truth lies in the consciousness of man; so that, what the consciousness thoroughly believes to be true, and of which no further explanation seems possible, is an ultimate fact of consciousness, and therefore is, indeed, Truth itself.

The scientific method is remarkably distinct from the two other methods to which I have been briefly referring, and the distinction consists essentially in this: that the scientific method considers that real knowledge, such as the human mind can clearly comprehend, or feel positively certain about, or have indisputably proved, is only to be derived from observation and experience of nature, and the study of her invariable laws.2 Laws of nature being a term used by our finite intelligence to denote those constant co-existences and ✓ Examination of the Method employed by Metaphysicians.' Buckle's History of Civilisation, vol. i. chap. iii., and the authorities there collected, especially Locke's Essay concerning Human Understanding, Stewart's Philosophy of the Human Mind, J. Mill's Analysis of the Phenomena of the Human Mind, Sir W. Hamilton's Discussions, &c.; and see Mansell's Metaphysics, Black, 1860,

2 The basis of all our real knowledge is the reliance we place on the constancy and precision of Nature.'-Mackay's Progress of the Intellect, &c., Intellectual Religion,' sec. 7; and see Cumberland's De Legibus Naturæ Disquisitio Philosophica (published in 1672). In this work 'the schoolmen and fathers, the canonists and casuists have vanished like ghosts at the first daylight'; the continual appeal is to experience and never to authority.'-Hallam's Lit. of Europe, vol. iii. p. 400, ed. 1854.

THEOLOGICAL AND SCIENTIFIC METHODS DISTINGUISHED.

5

sequences, or uniformity of relations, observable in the phenomena around us. Phenomena being a term denoting the appearances things present to our notice as distinguished from their essence or real nature, of which our senses can usually tell us nothing. Of these laws of nature, or God's natural laws, science has dis'covered a vast number,1 and has verified them, as governing, to a great extent, the course of life on earth; and the scientific school considers that the only reliable means which humanity possesses for ascertaining and testing such truth are our ordinary human powers, that is to say, our senses and our reflective faculties exercised upon, or in connection with, the information that our senses have supplied.

It must be obvious, from the foregoing explanation, that the views of the course of life, and the order of God's providence, on earth, that suggest themselves to the scientific thinker are essentially different from those that are entertained by the theologian. According to the theological theory, all things are regulated upon the principles to be collected from the study of the sacred Scriptures, in other words, by God's arbitrary will. According to the scientific theory, all things are regulated according to God's natural laws, which it is the province of science to discover. And again, the general test of right conduct in life must often be essentially different. According to the theological theory, misery, unhappiness, sickness, the premature

1 'It is the nature of the human mind to desire and seek a law. . . . All nature bears the impress of law. Science is, in brief, the pursuit of law. On the Importance of the Study of Economic Science,' by W. B. Hodgson, LL.D.: Modern Culture, Macmillan, 1867.

deaths of children, the agony of bereaved parents, are the direct result of the supernatural will of God, and are sent or occasioned for some special purpose of Divine justice, or, possibly even, are the blessings of a veiled benevolence, however to us inscrutable. According to the scientific theory, everything that happens on earth is the direct result of obedience to, or violation of, God's natural laws. That these laws have human happiness as their chief end in view, and that all misery or unhappiness, disease, premature deaths and bereavements, are distinctly traceable to the infringement of such laws, or, in other words, to the disregard of the will of God, their omniscient and beneficent author, with whom, we are told, 'there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.' Again, according to the theological theory, prayer to God, to avert or lighten by his will such inflictions, is the direct remedy for the sufferer. According to the scientific theory, increased knowledge of the laws that have been broken, and increased care to regulate our actions in accordance with their dictates, is the mode by which misery and calamity are to be alleviated or averted.1

This fundamental distinction that exists between the theological and scientific methods will be found yet more strikingly manifest on looking a little closely at the foundations on which they respectively rest-viz., science and theology. Let me here remark, that I am not

1 'Millions of prayers have been vainly breathed to what we now know were inexorable laws of nature.'-Lecky's Hist. of European Morals, chap. i. p. 56.