be expected, in simple
accordance. "Judas," says St. Chrysostom, "was with Him who knew not where
to lay His head, yet could not restrain himself; and how canst thou hope
to escape the contagion without anxious effort?" "It is ridiculous," says
St. Jerome, "to call it idolatry to offer to the creature the grains of
incense that are due to God, and not to call it so, to offer the whole
service of one's life to the creature." "There is not a trace of justice
in that heart," says St. Leo, "in which the love of gain has made itself a
dwelling." The same thing is emphatically taught us by the counsels of
perfection, and by every holy monk and nun anywhere, who has ever embraced
them; but it is needless to collect testimonies, when Scripture is so
clear.

Now, observe, Gentlemen, my drift in setting Scripture and the Fathers
over against Political Economy. Of course if there is a science of wealth,
it must give rules for gaining wealth and disposing of wealth, and can do
nothing more; it cannot itself declare that it is a subordinate science,
that its end is not the ultimate end of all things, and that its
conclusions are only hypothetical, depending on its premisses, and liable
to be overruled by a higher teaching. I do not then blame the Political
Economist for anything which follows from the very idea of his science,
from the very moment that it is recognized as a science. He must of course
direct his inquiries towards his end; but then at the same time it must be
recollected, that so far he is not practical, but only pursues an abstract
study, and is busy himself in establishing logical conclusions from
indisputable premisses. Given that wealth is to be sought, this and that
is the method of gaining it. This is the extent to which a Political
Economist has a right to go; he has no right to determine that wealth is
at any rate to be sought, or that it is the way to be virtuous and the
price of happiness; I say, this is to pass the bounds of his science,
independent of the question whether he be right or wrong in so
determining, for he is only concerned with an hypothesis.

To take a parallel case:--a physician may tell you, that if you are to
preserve your health, you must give up your employment and retire to the
country. He distinctly says "if;" that is all in which he is concerned, he
is no judge whether there are objects dearer to you, more urgent upon you,
than the preservation of your health; he does not enter into