We might be told of the early history of Chemistry, when alchemists sought in their concoctions a panacea for all human evils, and in their crucibles an alkalest or universal menstruum.
We might be told of the early history of Zooelogy, when the augur watched the flight, the singing, the feeding of birds, and applied them to the purposes of divination.

We might be told of Aeromancy as the earliest form of Meteorology, and of Geomancy as the earliest form of Geology.[75] And we might be told of the popular superstitions which lingered, till a very recent period, among the peasantry of our own country, and which are now gradually disappearing in proportion as the light of Religion and Science is diffused.[76] These facts, which appear on the surface of human history, do unquestionably prove that _there has been a process of gradual advancement_, by which each of the sciences has been, in succession, purged of its earlier errors, and placed on a more solid and enduring basis.

But they prove nothing more than this: they do _not_ prove that these sciences must ultimately supersede Theology, or that they have a necessary tendency towards Atheism.

On the contrary, we hold that they afford a valid presumption from analogy on the other side.

For suppose, even, that Religion, following the same law of development which determines the progress of every other branch of human knowledge, had become incorporated, in its earlier stages, with many fond and foolish superstitions, the analogy of the other sciences would lead us to conclude that, just as the reveries of Astrology had passed away and given place to a solid system of Astronomy,--and as the vain speculations of Alchemy had been superseded by the useful discoveries of Chemistry,--and as the arts of Augury and Divination had finally issued in the inductive science of true Natural History,--so Theology might also purge itself from the fond conceits which had been for a time incorporated with it, and still survive, after all superstition had passed away, as a sound and fruitful branch of the tree of knowledge.
This is not the precise light, however, in which M.Comte regards Theology, He does not speak of it as _a distinct and independent science_, but rather as _a method of Philosophy_, which has been applied to the explanation of _all_ the departments of Nature; and, viewed in this light, he objects to it on the ground that Positive Science peremptorily demands the elimination of all causes, efficient and final, and, consequently, the exclusion of all reference to God, or to any supernatural power, in connection with the laws either of the material or moral world.