VI.] Chauncey Wright. 87 



philosophic position, and as it has an immediate 

 bearing on the vexed question of science and religion, 

 I will crave the reader's indulgence while I illustrate 

 it briefly here. 



Doctors are proverbially known to disagree, whether 

 they be doctors in philosophy or in medicine ; but I 

 have often thought that an interesting case might be 

 made out by any one who should endeavour to sig- 

 nalise the half-hidden aspects of agreement rather 

 than the conspicuous aspects of difference among 

 philosophic schools. Certainly, in the controversy 

 which has been waged of late years concerning the 

 sources of knowledge and the criterion of truth, one 

 is inclined to suspect that a greater amount of anta- 

 gonism has been brought to the surface than is alto- 

 gether required by the circumstances. In old times, 

 when you were asked why you believed that things 

 would happen in future after much the same general 

 fashion as in the past, there were two replies which 

 you could make. If you were a believer in Locke, 

 you would say that you trusted in the testimony of 

 experience ; but here the follower of Leibnitz would 

 declare that you were very unwise, since experience 

 can only testify to what has happened already, and, 

 so far as experience goes, you haven't an iota of 

 warrant for your belief that the sun will rise to- 



