338 
XV. 
How M. 
Comte’s Philo- 
sophy may- 
stand in our 
way. 
103. If we were simply to follow tlie course of the present 
argument, and advance to the logical consequences of premisses 
which we may fairly regard as indisputable, there would seem 
no need to pause in this place on objections really 
pause in our disposed of by previous considerations. But a moral 
argument. argument needs something more than brief exact- 
ness, if conviction is to be hoped for. There are other obstacles 
to its success besides those of the reason ; and the previous 
inaptitude of some to receive moral conclusions, and the prac- 
tical reluctance of many, must not be forgotten. We have to 
remind all who hesitate, that ours is no mere speculation. The 
position is, that to reject our Deontology is to reject facts ; and 
it is this that we must press. 
104. Among those who, in our days, deliberately and some- 
what loftily deny what we mean by Religion, none perhaps have 
been more influential for a time than M. Comte ; 
and in noticing his positions we touch the similar 
objections of others. It is true indeed that certain 
peculiar views of Comte are fading : and this is not 
the place of course to examine his philosophy as a whole. 
In many respects, it already seems on the wane, among Secu- 
larists of the higher order. Thus his Glassification of 
Sciences is found to be less logical than Kant's, less philo- 
sophical than Aristotle's, and inferior to Lord Bacon's, in the 
Tnstauratio Magna , — which apparently suggested its outline. 
Even some of the most distinctive results of Comte's teaching 
are being rejected, and indeed were evidently fanciful from 
the first. Y et it is unquestionable that, allowing for all diver- 
sities, English Positivists, (for so they must be distinguished, 
for lack of other special name,) still have much in common 
with the founder of the School. — It is not for us however to 
complain, if theorists whom we know to be in error disagree 
among themselves in working out their hypotheses. Thus, 
. Mr. Buckle quite repudiated the moral notion of 
opinion among “ reverence " ; Mr. Lewes recoils from Comte's 
Positivists. “Religion of Humanity"; Mr. Congreve remains its 
faithful admirer ; while Mr. Spenser (destined to a permanent 
triumph over a host of philosophical inferiors who now 
surround his cause,) lays bare with logical unmercifulness the 
pretensions of the whole tribe of anti-metaphysicians, led on 
by Comte. 
105. But we must keep to our own point. Positivists of every 
class — all men indeed who would deal with the facts of our 
