339 
nature, — are bound to face this, that among the ideas of Right 
and Wrong in our world, a Religion of the Supernatural has 
always had place. Comte attempts to regard Illogical Di . 
Humanity as passing at different periods through visions of m. 
three distinct stages of progress, first the theo- cXtive E £ot 
logical, then the metaphysical, and at last the real * 
practical; but the fact is, that the earliest conditions of our 
race contradict this subdivision ; and the Comteist cannot 
point to any theology which had no metaphysics, nor to 
any metaphysics which could avoid theology ; nor to any 
practical system which had not presupposed both. It would 
require no ingenuity to make out a case which should entirely 
reverse M. Comte's ordo sceclorum, and show that the ante- 
diluvian world's progress, from Tubal-Cain to the building of 
the ark, was practical ; " that men took a more “ theo- 
logical " course from Abraham's time ; and became (C meta- 
physical " and sceptical from Plato to Marcus Antoninus. But 
such speculations would be almost as dreamy as Comte's. The 
facts assure us that theology, metaphysics and practice belong 
to human nature always. Every aspiration beyond the present, 
every general term in common speech, every action in common 
life, in every age, condemn M. Comte's illogical division. 
106. Without, then, pursuing any profitless controversies, 
we deal with M. Comte simply as he stands in the 
path, with a Religion of the Supernatural before no ° w concern 
us. We obtain conclusions by a simple induction epecuTltionsT 9 
of the facts of our human world. Whether, then, 
M. Comte's belief, e. p., that we have arrived at a distinctly 
new stage in our career, all our history being a chain of 
events — (a belief which was no novelty even in the days of 
Thucydides) — be admissible or not; whether again his idea 
that human knowledge may be regarded as one vast whole — 
(an idea which has haunted even the cloister, from Albert the 
Great till now) — be practically important ; or whether other 
special doctrines of the French philosopher, be worthy of 
debate; our present concern is to ask, whether his theories 
obstruct our way ? 
107. M. Comte we find would exclude from his cyclopedia 
the thought of God, as the Personal Ruler of the Moral world, 
(which we have shown to be inevitable,) — as much as he would 
refuse Him as Creator. Monotheism, — whether Hebrew, Maho- 
metan, or Christian — he, in distinct terms, repudiates. Even a 
Great Cause, a Fount of Order and of law, he con- 
ceives to be impossible, since according to him, Mxwecomea 
Order and Will are incompatible terms. Yet, while, acrpS3 ^ ar * 
m contradiction of tlie world's facts, lie thus dis- 
