science, so far as I am aware," adds Whewell, "in which this Consilience of Inductions has given testimony in favor of an hypothesis afterward discovered to be false."

Stronger verification, then, than this would hardly seem to be desired of religion by any one. Yet, if it is demanded, it has a further confirmation-that of prediction. "There is no more convincing proof," says Prof. Jevons, "of the soundness of scientific knowledge than that it thus confers the gift of foresight." "Prevision," says Auguste Comte, "is the test of true theory." The astronomer's predictions of the movements of the planets, the occurrence of eclipses, the return of cometseven, as in Leverrier's discovery of Neptune, the existence and movement of a hitherto unknown body-afford the most conspicuous proof of the correctness of the Copernican system and the Newtonian laws. Even so have the prophets of old and the seers of God, in all time, through their comprehension of the great laws of moral gravitation, been able to foretell the course of states and the coming eclipses of individual and national glory. They have reckoned beforehand, according to the calculus of Divine Sovereignty, the setting of unholy stars, now proudly flaming in the zenith, and the triumphant rise of unsullied orbs, veiled then, though they were, in darkness-and, lo! it has come to pass even as they have said. If all supernatural instruction or illumination be denied to the prophetic voices

of ancient and modern times, then the amazing power of insight, which must be ascribed to normal spiritual vision, as developed by religion, testifies with equal significance to the truth of the great principles on which religion is based.

Thus has religion positive foundations of the same kind as science, and they may be built up in a genuine scientific order. Doubtless a sharp scientific critic would find objections to such an inductive demonstration of religion. He would charge that these so-called inductions were not complete and exact, but imperfect-at best, only approximated perfection. He would say, "They are not simple colligations of facts, but they are theories built up and superimposed upon them. They are not cautious, exhaustive generalizations of coexistences; but they are hypotheses to which you have boldly leaped. And the verification you appeal to, though in much seeming to be given, is also in much wanting."

Now, these objections I should not altogether deny; but I should give to them this twofold answer, which ought fairly, it seems to me, to stop the mouth of the scientific objector, or of any objector who usually accepts, without hesitation, current scientific conclusions: First, in the previous chapters it has been shown in general that every one of these objections applies to science as well as to religion. Secondly, in the positive presentation, in the present chapter, not a single medium of proof is employed in regard to which it is not or cannot be shown

that the very same argument, or its counterpart, is customarily and confidently employed by science. If one is to be rejected, then both should be rejected; if one is to be trusted, then both should be trusted.

To sum up, then, the argument of the last four chapters. Science, equally with religion, has a faithbasis. It uses intuition, authority, evidence, and probable inference, and is often destitute of possible verification. Science, no more than religion, can withhold nor does withhold its belief from the supersensual, the immaterial, or the inconceivable. Inexactness, uncertainty, and variation in the results of its labors, are faults found in science as well as in religion. On the other hand, religion, as well as science, has an experimental basis. It grounds itself on observation; it proceeds by induction, and it confirms its truths by verifications and previsions.

In this similarity of science and religion is there not something that should have practical influence with that daily-increasing number who, while accepting implicitly all the established truths and even the wildest speculations of science, look upon religion with suspicion, if not contempt? We commend to all such the words of Huxley: "By science I understand all knowledge which rests upon evidence and reasoning of a like character to that which claims our assent to ordinary scientific propositions, and if any one is able to make good the assertion that his theology rests upon valid evidence and

sound reasoning, then it appears to me that such theology must take its place as a part of science."

I respectfully ask why the fundamental truths of religion do not already stand in that category with as good a right as the greater portion of what is called science?

CHAPTER VIII.

CONCLUSION.

A SURVEY, then, of the relations of Physical and Religious Knowledge will bring a candid inquirer, I believe, to these conclusions: There is no necessary and rightful antagonism between Science and Religion. The actual opposition existing is due to the fact that each is, in many things, ignorant of itself and ignorant of the other. A fuller mutual acquaintance will so disclose to each its respective field that former intrusions shall cease, and will so fix the identity of each that other enemies shall not, as hitherto, be mistaken for it. More thorough knowledge will also show that the claims both have made to exclusive knowledge and supremacy cannot be sustained. Each has similar weaknesses; each has similar supports. Neither can overthrow the other with safety to itself. Each, in fact, needs the other, and should make of it an ally.

Without Science to correct and guide it, Religion is constantly going astray. The countless excesses and irrationalities of superstition, the varied corruptions of every faith, adoration of stick and