489 
sciences, because these latter have to do only with two con- 
ceptions, extension and quantity. These are conceptions 
which admit of the utmost clearness of predication ; and where 
they do not, they can be represented by symbols, which in 
their results admit of the greatest certainty of re-translation 
into the conceptions which they represent. This is not the 
case with any portion of truth which belongs to theology. 
Theologians are often in the habit of laying to the charge of 
science that all its conclusions are not strictly demonstrative, 
and therefore uncertain. Scientific men also frequently return 
the compliment by denying the rational character of theology. 
This much resembles the old story, which tells us that on an 
occasion the poker remonstrated with the tongs for its black- 
ness. It is probably true that there is not a science which is 
in every point absolutely and theoretically demonstrative. 
Even Euclid must come under that condemnation, owing to 
the fact that the twelfth axiom, and probably one or two 
others, are not pure intuitions. But does the imperfection of 
the last axiom lead any one to question the absolute truth of 
any of the propositions which rest on it ? What, I ask, is the 
position of theology ? Do not the great bulk of its truths 
rest on a basis less self-evident. And what is the basis on 
which the Christian revelation rests ? I answer with Butler, 
on a basis not of demonstration, but of various degrees of 
probability. Those whose beliefs rest on probable evidence 
have no right to find fault with others whose beliefs rest 
on the same foundation. 
But are these systems, therefore, not sciences ? Can no- 
thing be a matter of reasonable certainty, unless it rests on a 
basis of pure demonstration ? If we assert this, we cannot 
stop short of Pyrrhonism. Some persons think that they can 
aid the cause of theological truth by throwing discredit on the 
demonstrative character of the sciences. We are told that even 
the truths of astronomy do not rest on a basis which is actually 
demonstrative ; and that the conclusions of astronomers in one 
age have had to be corrected in another. I am at a loss to 
know what benefit can come from this to theology, such large 
portions of which rest on evidence which, though highly 
probable, is not demonstrative. Still less is it becoming in 
the mouth of the defender of divine revelation. The taunt 
admits of an effective tu quoque reply. We Oxford men 
believe in the existence of many sciences, which are far from 
being demonstrative, such as logic, moral philosophy, 
political economy, even politics and rhetoric. We are ready 
to concede that their conclusions are not absolutely, but only 
for the most part, true ; still they are suited to be the guides 
