created universe, and it ends with Him who is God's fulness.
Archbishop Temple ² puts it even more plainly: 'We affirm,
then, that unless all existence is a medium of Revelation,
no particular Revelation is possible.' So the Christian faith
links together the starry heavens above and the moral law
within, and is enfeebled if it fails to do justice to either.

But science makes similar claims, though perhaps a little
more restrained. T. H. Huxley could write of the power of
the new knowledge: 'We are in the midst of a gigantic
movement greater than that which preceded and produ-
ced the Reformation.' And Francis Bacon sounded the
trumpet call of the era of modern science when he wrote ³ :
'We need fear no lion in the path nor set any limit to our
journey.'

Only two possibilities are open when far-reaching claims
of this kind are made by several parties. Either they go to-
gether or they are in conflict. It is true that many eminent
men of science believe that their science is of a piece with
their religion. But equally truly many do not. An example
of the first group is my predecessor in the Rouse Ball Chair
at Oxford, the late E. A. Milne, who could write ⁴

The Christmas message--which is also the Christian message
--is 'Gloria in excelsis Deo' . . . Glory to God in the highest
and on earth peace among men of goodwill. This is not a
bad definition of the aim of all true science; the aim of re-
joicing in the splendid mysteries of the world and universe we
live in, and of attempting so to understand those mysteries
that we can improve our command over nature, improve our
conditions of life and so ensure peace.

But side by side with that let me put the assertion of an
American Professor of physiology; that 'science has shown
religion to be history's cruellest and wickedest hoax.' It is

-4-