250 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



serve that Professor Huxley seems to recognize this view, or rather 

 he regards the principle as one the truth of which is not proved, but 

 which is valuable as a working hypothesis, and all the more valuable 

 because it has never yet failed hira. The separation of the principle 

 from theological considerations is, however, practically impossible ; we 

 must make up our minds to many a fight upon the frontiers of the 

 natural and the supernatural. Not a few persons believe that the pos- 

 sibility of religious faith, at this epoch of history, depends much upon 

 the conclusions to which they come concerning the laws and operations 

 of Nature ; and I will not venture to deny that they who so believe 

 have some reason to give for their belief. 



It is in accordance with the statement just now advanced with 

 regard to the close practical connection betAveen the principle of the 

 uniformity of Nature and theology that we find the said principle 

 brought at once to the front in the Bishop of London's recent " Bamp- 

 ton Lectures," entitled " The Relations between Religion and Science." 

 With the general argument and results of these undoubtedly able 

 lectures I shall not here be concerned, but it will be much to my pur- 

 pose to make a few observations upon what is said in the first of the 

 series concerning the uniformity of Nature. 



The earliest occasion upon which the phrase appears is to be found 

 in the following sentence : " It Avill be admitted that the Supreme 

 Postulate, without which scientific knowledge is impossible, is the 

 Uniformity of Nature." * 



Now, a postulate is a proposition which is granted as the basis of 

 an argument, because its truth is conceived to be self-evident ; or at all 

 events it is the simplest proposition to which a chain of reasoning 

 can be reduced, and, if it be not granted, all further argument is im- 

 possible. Thus, Euclid's first postulate is, that from one point a 

 straight line can be drawn to any other point. But surely it can scarce- 

 ly be said of the uniformity of Nature that it has anything of this 

 simple and self-evidencing character. The question, moreover, is not 

 whether scientific knowledge be possible or impossible without it ; if 

 impossible, so much the worse for scientific knowledge. The ques- 

 tion still recurs, Is the principle true ? Moreover, can it be averred 

 that scientific knowledge is impossible without this postulate ? If so, 

 why is it that the principle is not asserted in Newton's " Principia," or 

 Laplace's "JVIecanique Celeste," or the various treatises on light, heat, 

 electricity, botany, and what not? Certainly it seems to me ex- 

 tremely doubtful Avhether the " Supreme Postulate " either is admit- 

 ted, or ought to be admitted, as the basis of scientific knowledge. 



I suspect, however, that the bishop does not intend the word Pos- 

 tulate to be taken in its strict scientific sense ; for he illustrates his 

 position by reference to the discovery of the planet Neptune, which 

 resulted from the assumption that the law of gravitation holds uni- 



* Paf'e 6. 



