416 COSMIC PHILOSOPHY [PT. in. 



Newton, and such others as have aided in detecting the order 

 of sequence among celestial phenomena, seems as irrational 

 to the scientific inquirer as it seems impious to the reli 

 gious mind. The Cosmist may assert, as consistently as the 

 Anthropomorphist, that &quot; the undevout astronomer is mad.&quot; 

 Though science must destroy mythology, it can never destroy 

 religion ; and to the astronomer of the future, as well as 

 to the Psalmist of old, the heavens will declare the glory 

 of God. 



Before proceeding further to expound this theorem, in 

 which science and religion find their reconciliation, it is 

 desirable to turn aside for a moment and contrast the views 

 here expounded with the views maintained by Comte con 

 cerning the true object of the religious feeling. We shall 

 thus the better elucidate our own position, while once more 

 pointing out the world-wide difference between our philo 

 sophy and Positivism. Let us examine the conception of 

 Deity formed by the thinker to whom the heavens mani 

 fested no other glory than that of Hipparchos and Newton 

 and their compaers. 



Comte recognized, though vaguely, the truth that while 

 the human race in the course of its philosophic evolution 

 must outgrow theology, it can never outgrow religion. He 

 justly maintained that, while the conception of a presiding 

 quasi-human Will must eventually be discarded as an in- 

 idequate subjective symbol, there will nevertheless remain 

 to the last the powerful sentiment of devotion which has 

 hitherto attached itself to that anthropomorphic conception, 

 but must finally attach itself to some other conception. 

 Throughout future time, while science is supreme, no less 

 than in that past time when mythology was supreme, there 

 must be a religion, and this religion must have an object. 

 So far the position taken by Comte appears to be defensible 

 enough. But now when we come to consider the object of 

 the religious sentiment in Comte s scheme, we must pro* 



