150 ON THE PHYSICAL BASIS OF LIFE in 



the main, fairly stated by the Archbishop of 

 York. 



But I may be permitted to make a preliminary 

 comment upon an occurrence that greatly as- 

 tonished me. Applying the name of the " New 

 Philosophy " to that estimate of the limits of 

 philosophical inquiry which I, in common with 

 many other men of science, hold to be just, the 

 Archbishop opens his address by identifying this 

 " New Philosophy " with the Positive Philosophy 

 of M. Comte (of whom he speaks as its 

 " founder ") ; and then proceeds to attack that 

 philosopher and his doctrines vigorously. 



Now, so far as I am concerned, the most 

 reverend prelate might dialectically hew M. 

 Comte in pieces, as a modern Agag, and I should 

 not attempt to stay his hand. In so far as my 

 study of what specially characterises the Positive 

 Philosophy has led me, I find therein little or 

 nothing of any scientific value, and a great deal 

 which is as thoroughly antagonistic to the very 

 essence of science as anything in ultramontane 

 Catholicism. In fact, M. Comte's philosophy, in 

 practice, might be compendiously described as 

 Catholicism minus Christianity. 



But what has Comtism to do with the " New I 

 Philosophy," as the Archbishop defines it in the ji 

 following passage ? 



" Let me briefly remind you of the leading principles of this 

 new philosophy. 



