habit absolutely more perfect than any science;' and again: 'Yet, nevertheless, by the best of rights, it may be called a science, because absolutely it is a habit more perfect than any science described by philosophers.'[1]
Theology then may be called, though improprie, a science. First, because it is a science, if not as to its principles, at least as to its form, method, process, development, and transmission. And secondly, because though its principles are not evident, they are, in all the higher regions of it, infallibly certain; and because many of them are the necessary, eternal, and incorruptible truths, which according to Aristotle, generate science.
If then theology, which in certainty is next to science properly so called, is to be called science only improprie, notwithstanding the infallible certainty and immutable nature of its ultimate principles, how can human history, written by uninspired human authors, transmitted by documents open to corruption, change, and mutilation, without custody or security, except the casual tradition of human testimony and human criticism, open to perversion by infirmity and passion of every kind,—how can such subject-matter yield principles of certainty which excludes contradiction, and ultimate truths immediate to the intellect and evident in themselves?
If by historical science be meant an increased precision in examining evidence and in testing documents, and in comparing narratives together, we will gladly use the word by courtesy; but if more than this be
- ↑ Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost, p. 107–112.
