that she will not continue to be negligible by philosophers. To ignore history' (as just defined) is indeed necessary to the very existence of science, which is confessedly abstract and departmental; but for philosophy it is selfmutilation, arbitrary sacrifice of that portion of actuality, it may well be, with which an 'interpretation' of the world as a whole can least afford to dispense.

Apart from actual signs to the contrary, it is difficult to believe that philosophy can persist in her attitude of insularity. For, since she necessarily derives her ideas from matter of experience, and has long abandoned the aspiration to obtain them from pure thought alone, she cannot consistently refuse to admit into her stock of concepts ideas thrust upon us by the most significant facts of history. If, then, the Gospel record be only in its salient features true, the manifestation of God in and through a Personality who appeared upon the stage of human life must enter, as Dr Caldecott has said with timely boldness,* into all else of truth that philosophy has gained, and must transform all ideas which should be found inadequate through not having taken that Personality into account. This utterance recalls the ambition of the Alexandrine Fathers of the second century: an ambition which the Christian apologist ought to cherish, provided he be convinced of the reality of the historical basis for his Christian faith. In the strength of such conviction, and inspired with that reverence for fact, as fact, which marks the scientific spirit, he should not shrink from approaching philosophy with the frank demand for serious consideration of events once and for all woven into the sum of actuality that she and theology alike seek to interpret under the highest categories to which they can attain. He must claim that theology, philosophy, and the historical and natural sciences are reciprocally involved and dependent one upon another; collectively necessary to the completeness of one and undivided truth; and severally essential for the stable foundation of reasoned and reasonable faith in a Supreme Being such as may also be called, with any real significance, 'the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.'

* Cambridge Theological Essays,' edited by Prof. Swete (1905), p. 146.

To recapitulate. The present tendency to withdraw Christian theology from contact with the several departments of knowledge distinguished as philosophy, science and history, repeats a former movement of thought which worked itself out to a disastrous end. The modern resembles the medieval movement, and similarly points to a culmination in the doctrine of the

double truth.' The two bases for religious faith to which irrationalism' has resorted after repudiating those furnished by philosophy and alleged historical fact must both be pronounced foundations of sand. The appeal to individual present experience and that to the deliverances of the practical reason are alike vain, except on the presupposition of results obtainable only by our theoretic faculties.

The necessity for such prior knowledge would seem to have escaped the recognition of those who have sought to dispense with it in consequence of their having thought the pragmatic test of truth to be equally trustworthy in the sphere of theology and in that of natural science. This, however, is not the case. For truth' in physical science, it suffices that a theory 'works'; for 'to work' here means to describe correctly the objective phenomena, to agree with external facts whose actuality is a matter of experience. But to work' in the sphere of religion means to be an effective stimulus to spiritual effort or to minister to spiritual peace. For this, however, it is sufficient that the theory or belief concerning the external object of faith-such as God or a Divine Redeemer-be held by the individual with firm conviction. Here, subjective certitude is enough; there, objective certainty is essential. Between the two things, however, a great gulf is fixed; and, till it is bridged by proof of the external object in which faith reposes, neither the valuejudgment nor immediate individual experience can carry us beyond mere subjectivity. But for faith to remain a permanent possession of reasonable men it must be based upon what they take for knowledge. Faith, indeed, always involves a venture, a leap; but the leap can only be made from terra firma. It is one of the merits of Prof. Höffding's interesting and able contribution to the philosophy of religion to have unintentionally enforced this truth, and to have clearly shown that faith which is

not thus grounded upon knowledge inevitably lapses into baseless hope.

We have further seen that the recent tendency to subjectivism in theology is largely the outcome of fear of those other departments of knowledge from which isolation has been sought. In so far as the natural sciences are concerned, this fear can now be seen to have been misplaced. The concrete sciences have made an end, indeed, of certain beliefs once current among the religious, but theology has emerged the stronger and healthier for this purging away of superstition; while abstract science, the conceptual shorthand' which seeks to epitomise such knowledge of Nature as is acquired by elimination and generalisation and to make it coherent, has proved itself to be so wholly ideal and conventional that neither in its present state nor in its future progress can the scientist who is aware of its limitations discern any possibility of conflict with theistic belief. Prof. Henri Poincaré is but one amongst a large number of eminent living physicists, not to speak of philosophers, whose recent investigation of the logic of science has served to render obsolete the naturalism of a generation ago; special mention has here been made of his works because he has written without any reference to the theological bearings of the results at which he has arrived.

It has been further maintained that the current disparagement of historical methods as a means to truth of fact is not only exaggerated, but is also largely a survival of the scepticism which science has of late been renouncing. When historical criticism shall have laid aside the dread of 'natural law' and 'uniformity' with which science falsely so called' posthumously inspired it, it may or it may not be in a position to assure the Christian that his belief is founded upon solid fact. But I have contended that, whatever the ultimate verdict be, Christianity cannot repudiate its dependence upon history. If its leading ideas have not been derived from historical facts, they must be regarded as figments of the imagination-our 'faith is vain.' If, on the other hand, the facts remain as obstinate as they hitherto have proved, they will not merely serve as a reasonable basis for the structure of distinctively Christian belief which has been

built upon them. They must also be reckoned among the data of experience from which philosophy constructs her interpretation of the world. The science of the unrepeatable, the unique, but the significant, has as much right to a hearing, when the implications of the whole of human knowledge come up for consideration, as the sciences of the recurrent, the general, the calculable, but the meaningless.' Science, as Prof. James Ward has remarked, might well have finished its work and yet be a fool. It is of the essence of science that she cares all for the mechanism, not at all for the meaning. Philosophy, however, is concerned to guess the meaning of the world and of the life-drama to which the world of science is but stage-scenery. Hence her need to ponder the historical, and to ponder the more deeply when history is pregnant with implication and significance. So far, then, should Christian theology be from surrendering the historical-as the tendency now is that she should rather cherish the hope of bringing forth from her treasury things new as well as old. For, when philosophy comes, as there are signs that she is coming, to render to the historical-which, by the way, is not necessarily the merely' historical-the dues that she has for the most part wrongfully withheld, Christianity, after long neglect of her debt to philosophical construction, may awake once more to the fact that she has in her keeping the means to supply philosophy with the concepts that alone can make her equal to her task.

F. R. TENNANT.

Art. 4.-A PROJECTED JACOBITE INVASION.

1. Anciennes Archives historiques du Ministère de la Guerre, vols. 3151-3154. Ministère de la Guerre, Paris. 2. Journal et Mémoires du Marquis d'Argenson. Par E. J. B. Rathery. Nine vols. Paris: Renouard, 1859-67. 3. Une famille royaliste irlandaise et française. By the late Duc de La Trémoïlle. Nantes: Grimaud, 1901. English translation by A. G. Murray MacGregor. Edinburgh: Brown, 1904.

WHEN the late Duc de La Trémoïlle published, some ten years ago, a collection of the family papers of his mother, Mademoiselle Valentine Walsh de Serrant, he included in his work some of the correspondence between Louis XV's Ministers, on the one hand, and Anthony Vincent Walsh, first Earl Walsh of James III's creation, on the other. These papers deal with a projected invasion of England, to support Prince Charles Edward, in 1745. The King of France had decided on creating a diversion in the Prince's favour by sending to England eighteen battalions of infantry, including the six regiments of the Irish Brigade, who were to be supported by the Fitzjames regiment of cavalry and a regiment of dragoons, and had given Walsh instructions to superintend their embarkation. These instructions, which were most detailed and precise, leave no doubt that some such expedition had not only been planned but fully organised.

The Marquis d'Argenson, who was then Minister of War to Louis XV, might have thrown a good deal of light upon this scheme, as he played a considerable part in the Jacobite policy of the French Government. He was Lord Sempill's chief correspondent in all that related to the preparations for Charles Edward's original expedition; and it was to him that the Prince's chief representative in Scotland addressed most of his appeals for help. He induced Voltaire to write in favour of the Jacobite cause; and it was he again who, according to Amédée Pichot's Histoire de Charles Édouard' (ed. 4, vol. II, p. 331), signed on October 24, 1745, a secret treaty with O'Brien, Lord Lismore, James III's agent in France, by which Louis XV fully acknowledged Charles Edward as Prince Regent of England and Scotland. Finally,