word possible, God. But it is God immanent, the living Ground of all forms and phases of existence. That which distinguishes philosophy from the mere rationalism of both superaturalism and naturalism is found in this conception of the immanence of the Ground in all phases of particularity. This rationalism never gets beyond a Deus ex machina. It bottoms all forms of faith and institution on that which is beyond. Its jure divino creeds, cults, decalogues, politics, are all based upon a transcendent mechanical First Principle. It never rises to a res completa. It always deals with parts without living organic link. With such forms criticism easily plays havoc. But philosophy sees these same forms as living parts of one self-evolving, self-realizing Idea, of the Absolute Unity which differentiates or particularizes itself, and yet is ever in and above all its particulars. Form and image may change, but the ever-living spirit persists through all change — the correlated and conserved force of the universe. Philosophy thus gives another jure divino basis to all the ever-changing forms of life, creed, code, and institution. It sees that the real is the relatively rational, not because any status quo is ultimate, but because it is a progressive manifestation of the reason that is at the heart of all that is. But when we thus dogmatically announce this Ultimate Ground, we find ourselves asking for reasons for it. To attempt to give external reasons would be to fall back into that unresolved dualism of rationalism which leads ultimately to agnosticism. For such a Ground, no sign or reason can be given, except that which is self-contained and self-authenticating. How then, let us ask, does God manifest Himself as the ground of all authority in the most comprehensive view of reality — philosophy?
Philosophy is interpretative of phenomenal reality. It is not a priori, but strictly inductive. Without the woof of experience it is as empty as experience without its warp is blind and chaotic. The laws which science discovers are inductive hypotheses. So we may say, at the risk of being misunderstood, that the God of philosophy is an inductive and yet necessary hypothesis. But how does it reach it? A critical esti-
