“In the opinion of the Romish clergy, who labour under a chronic nightmare of the devil, Comte offers his “woman of the future” to the possession of the “incubi.” In the opinion of more prosaic persons, the Divinity of Positivism, must henceforth be regarded as a biped broodmare.
Even Littre, made prudent restrictions while accepting the apostleship of this marvelous religion. This is what he wrote in 1859: “M. Comte not only thought that he found the principles, traced the outlines, and furnished the method, but that he had deduced the consequences and constructed the social and religious edifice of the future. It is in this second division that we make our reservations, declaring, at the same time, that we accept as an inheritance, the whole of the first.”
Further, he says: “M. Comte, in a grand work entitled the System of the Positive Philosophy, established the basis of a philosophy [?] which must finally supplant every theology and the whole of metaphysics. Such a work necessarily contains a direct application to the government of societies; as it has nothing arbitrary in it [?] and as we find therein a real science [?], my adhesion to the principles involves my adhesion to the essential consequences.”
Mr. Littre has shown himself in the light of a true son of his prophet. Indeed the whole system of Comte appears to us to have been built on a play of words. When they say “Positivism”, read Nihilism; when you hear the word chastity, know that it means impudicity, and so on. Being a religion based on a theory of negation, its adherents can hardly carry it out practically without saying white when meaning black!
“Positive Philosophy”, continues Littre, “does not accept atheism, for the atheist is not a really-emancipated mind, but is, in his own way, a theologian still; he gives his explanation about the essence of things; he knows how they began!…Atheism is Pantheism; this system is quite theological yet, and thus belongs to the ancient party.””
H. P. Blavatsky