320 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



public utterances of his as I have read of late years, fervid in their 

 eloquence, persuaded me that he had become a much warmer adherent. 

 On his summary mode of dealing with my criticism of the Comtean 

 creed some comment is called for. He remarks that there are "good 

 reasons for declining to discuss with Mr. Spencer the writings of 

 Comte ; " and names, as the first, " that he knows [I know] nothing 

 whatever about them" (p. 365). Now as Mr. Harrison is fully aware 

 that thirty years ago I reviewed the English version of those parts of 

 the Positive Philosophy which treat of Mathematics, Astronomy and 

 Physics ; and as he has referred to the pamphlet in which, ten years 

 later, I quoted a number of passages from the original to signalize my 

 grounds of dissent from Comte's system ; I am somewhat surprised by 

 this statement, and by the still more emphatic statement that to me 

 " the writings of Comte are, if not the Absolute Unknowable, at any 

 rate the Absolute Unknown " (p. 365). Doubtless these assertions are 

 effective ; but like many effective assertions they do not suificiently 

 recognize the facts. The remaining statements in this division of Mr. 

 Harrison's argument, I pass over : not because answers equally ade- 

 quate with those I have thus far given do not exist, but because I can 

 not give them without entering ujjon jjersonal questions which I prefer 

 to avoid. 



On the closing part of " Agnostic Metaphysics " containing Mr. Har- 

 rison's own version of the Religion of Humanity, I have to remark, 

 as I find others remarking, that it amounts, if not to an abandonment 

 of his original position, still to an entire change of front. Anxious, 

 as he has professed himself, to retain the " magnificent word Religion " 

 (p. 504), it now appears that when " the Religion of Humanity " is 

 spoken of, the usual connotations of the word are to be in large 

 measure dropped : to give it these connotations is " to foist in theo- 

 logical ideas where none are suggested by us" (p. 369). While, in 

 his first article, one of the objections raised to the " neo-theisms " as 

 well as " the Unknowable," was that there is offered " no relation what- 

 ever between worshipper and worshipped" (p. 505) (an objection tacitly 

 implying that Mr. Harrison's religion supplies this relation), it now 

 appears that Humanity is not to be worshipped in any ordinary sense ; 

 but that by worship is simply meant " intelligent love and respect for 

 our human brotherhood," and that " in plain words, the Religion of 

 Humanity means recognizing your duty to your fellow-man on human 

 grounds" (p. 369). Certainly this is much less than what I and 

 others supposed to be included in Mr. Harrison's version of the Re- 

 ligion of Humanity. If he preaches nothing more than an ecstatic 

 philanthropy, few will object ; but most will say that his name for it 

 conveyed to them a much wider meaning. Passing over all this, 

 however, I am concerned chiefly to point out another extreme mis- 

 representation made by Mr. Harrison when discussing my criticism 

 of Comte's assertion that " veneration and gratitude " are due to the 



