116 REASONS FOE DISSENTING FROM COMTE. 



Two causes of quite different kinds, have conspired to diffuse 

 the erroneous belief that M. Comte is an accepted exponent 

 of scientific opinion. His bitterest foes and his closest 

 friends, have unconsciously joined in propagating it. On the 

 one hand, M. Comte having designated by the term &quot; Positive 

 Philosophy&quot; all that definitely-established knowledge which 

 men of science have been gradually organizing into a cohe 

 rent body of doctrine ; and having habitually placed this in 

 opposition to the incoherent body of doctrine defended by 

 theologians ; it has become the habit of the theological party 

 to think of the antagonist scientific party, under the title 

 of &quot; positivists.&quot; And thus, from the habit of calling 

 them &quot;positivists,&quot; there has grown up the assumption 

 that they call themselves &quot; positivists,&quot; and that they are 

 the disciples of M. Comte. On the other hand, those who 

 have accepted M. Comte s system, and believe it to be 

 the philosophy of the future, have naturally been prone 

 to see everywhere the signs of its progress ; and wherever 

 they have found opinions in harmony with it, have ascribed 

 these opinions to the influence of its originator. It is always 

 the tendency of discipleship to magnify the effects of the 

 master s teachings ; and to credit the master with all the 

 doctrines he teaches. In the minds of his followers, M. 

 Comte s name is associated with scientific thinking, which, 

 in many cases, they first understood from his exposition of it. 

 Influenced as they inevitably are by this association of ideas, 

 they are reminded of M. Comte wherever they meet with 

 thinking which corresponds, in some marked way, to M. 

 Comte s description of scientific thinking ; and hence are apt 

 to imagine him as introducing into other minds, the con 

 ceptions which he introduced into their minds. Such im 

 pressions are, however, in most cases quite unwarranted. 

 That M. Comte has given a general exposition of the doctrine 

 and method elaborated by Science, is true. But it is not true 

 that the holders of this doctrine and followers of this method, 



