38 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



the product he calls Positive Philosophy. For what is the one word 

 which describes this theory of transformation, exhibited by the Cosmos 

 as a whole and by every part of it, and proceeding everywhere after the 

 same general manner and everywhere consequent on the same general 

 laws of forces? The one word is Cosmogony. And what is the name 

 applicable to M. Comte's Positive Philosophy ? An Organon of the 

 Sciences. 



See, then, how the case stands. A system which had for its germi- 

 nal idea Von Baer's formula of organic development — a system which 

 grew by the addition of other general ideas, to one of which, I believe, 

 Schelling's doctrine of individuation partially opened the way, but 

 the others of which grew up I know not how — a system which slowly 

 became a coherent whole, uniting the several principles by derivation 

 from one ultimate principle — a system the exposition of which followed 

 an order not determined by any theory of classification, but simply by 

 the order of genesis of the phenomena themselves — a system which, at 

 the very outset, presented itself as the rudiment of a cosmogony, and 

 became eventually a fully-elaborated cosmogony ; is a system which 

 Mr. Harrison holds to be inspired by Comte's " Organon of the Sci- 

 ences," the greater part of which is concerned with scientific methods, 

 with the dependence of ideas, with the course of intellectual progress, 

 with the order of discovery, and the like ; and which entirely ignores 

 geological evolution, biological evolution, and psychological evolution. 

 This system it is which Mr. Harrison characterizes as " an attempt to 

 play a new tune upon Comte's instrument " ! 



I ask space only for a few words on the question of authorities. 

 Mr. Harrison, finding the verdict of Mr, John Stuart Mill against him, 

 does his best to discredit it. He says that Mr. Mill was scarcely in a 

 position for judging, since " he had one volume only and part of an- 

 other before him." He is quite mistaken. If I had continued to 

 quote Mr. Mill's letter, I should have quoted a passage saying that he 

 had been re-reading the "Principles of Psychology" (edition of 1855). 

 Besides this, and " Social Statics," and " First Principles," and nearly 

 one volume of the Biology, he had before him two volumes of Essays, 

 the majority of which bear in one way or other on the doctrine of 

 evolution, and sufficiently show the drift of much that was coming. 

 But Mr. Harrison attempts to discredit Mr. Mill's letter by calling it 

 a " testimonial," and saying that lie was able to " read between tlie 

 lines." After having pointed out that I simply asked Mr. Mill to re- 

 turn my letter, and that his letter, accompanying it, was voluntarily 

 written, I think every one will be of opinion that this sneer of Mr, 

 Harrison's is wholly uncalled for ; and when they observe that he says 

 what he does notwithstanding that Mr. Mill, in his volume on Comte 

 published a year later, utters substantially the same opinion as in his 

 letter, they will think his sneer without excuse. To strengthen his 

 case Mr. Harrison seeks to override the verdict of Mr. Mill by that of 



