ORIGIN OF THE SYNTHETIC PHILOSOPHY. 31 



its Law and Cause," and on " The Ultimate Laws of Physiology," pub- 

 lished respectively in the " Westminster Review " and the " National 

 Review " (not the periodical now bearing that title) in April and Octo- 

 ber, 1857, more than two years before the publication of "The Origin 

 of Species." Another source was not very long since alleged by the 

 Rev. Thomas Mozley. In his " Reminiscences," etc., when giving an 

 account of the influence exercised over him by my father, of whom he 

 was a pupil, he describes himself as deriving from my father certain 

 ideas which led him to think out a philosophy of like general nature 

 with that set forth by me ; but when, after enumerating the cardinal 

 ideas of the Synthetic Philosophy, I requested him to point out any 

 one of them which was contained in his own " elder philosoj^hy," as 

 he called it, he did not do so, and said all he meant by " family like- 

 ness " was such family likeness as might be alleged between " Cardinal 

 Newman's view and his brother Frank's." * And now comes Mr. Har- 

 rison, repeating the assertion made twenty yeai's ago, and then refuted 

 by me, that I am indebted to Comte — nay, that I owe to him " all the 

 idees-m^res " of the Synthetic Philosophy. These three different be- 

 liefs concerning its origin go a long way toward destroying one another. 

 Each by implication contradicting the other two is itself contradicted 

 by them ; and being thus severally discredited, they might, perhaps, 

 safely be left as they stand. But readers of Mr. Harrison's address 

 miarht not consider this sufficient, and I must therefore deal with his 

 statement directly. 



In the first sentence of that statement he refers to a brochure en- 

 titled " The Classification of the Sciences ; to which are added Reasons 

 for Dissenting from the Philosophy of M. Comte," originally published 

 in March, 1864. In this I have set down not such " divergences " as 

 might consist with partial acceptance, which Mr. Harrison's statement 

 may lead readers to suppose, but I have given " reasons for dissenting 

 from," and rejecting, Comte's philosophy altogether. I have enumer- 

 ated six cardinal propositions essentially characterizing the Positive 

 Philosophy, and have set against them six counter-propositions which 

 I hold. I have then gone on to say : 



"Leaving out of his 'Exposition' those pre-established general doctrines 

 which are the common property of modern thinkers, these are the general doc- 

 trines which remain — these are the doctrines which fundamentally distinguish 

 his system. From every one of them I dissent. To each proposition I oppose 

 either a widely different proposition or a direct negation ; and I not only do it 

 now, but have done it from the time when I became acquainted with his writings. 

 This rejection of his cardinal principles should, I think, alone suffice; but there 

 are sundry other views of his, some of them largely characterizing his system, 

 which I equally reject.'' 



And I have thereupon contrasted four other general views of Comte 

 with the opposite views held by me. 



* See "Athenaeum," July 22, 1882. 



