reasons, he would cause to be taught, from the age of fourteen to that of twenty-one, to all persons, rich and poor, girls or youths, a knowledge of the whole series of abstract sciences, such as none but the most highly instructed persons now possess, and of a far more systematic and philosophical character than is usually possessed even by them. (N.B.—­They are to learn, during the same years, Greek and Latin, having previously, between the ages of seven and fourteen, learnt the five principal modern languages, to the degree necessary for reading, with due appreciation, the chief poetical compositions in each.) But they are to be taught all this, not only without encouraging, but stifling as much as possible, the examining and questioning spirit.  The disposition which should be encouraged is that of receiving all on the authority of the teacher.  The Positivist faith, even in its scientific part, is la foi demontrable, but ought by no means to be la foi toujours demontree.  The pupils have no business to be over-solicitous about proof.  The teacher should not even present the proofs to them in a complete form, or as proofs.  The object of instruction is to make them understand the doctrines themselves, perceive their mutual connexion, and form by means of them a consistent and systematized conception of nature.  As for the demonstrations, it is rather desirable than otherwise that even theorists should forget them, retaining only the results.  Among all the aberrations of scientific men, M. Comte thinks none greater than the pedantic anxiety they show for complete proof, and perfect rationalization of scientific processes.  It ought to be enough that the doctrines afford an explanation of phaenomena, consistent with itself and with known facts, and that the processes are justified by their fruits.  This over-anxiety for proof, he complains, is breaking down, by vain scruples, the knowledge which seemed to have been attained; witness the present state of chemistry.  The demand of proof for what has been accepted by Humanity, is itself a mark of “distrust, if not hostility, to the sacerdotal order” (the naivete of this would be charming, if it were not deplorable), and is a revolt against the traditions of the human race.  So early had the new High Priest adopted the feelings and taken up the inheritance of the old.  One of his favourite aphorisms is the strange one, that the living are more and more governed by the dead.  As is not uncommon with him, he introduces the dictum in one sense, and uses it in another.  What he at first means by it, is that as civilization advances, the sum of our possessions, physical and intellectual, is due in a decreasing proportion to ourselves, and in an increasing one to our progenitors.  The use he makes of it is, that we should submit ourselves more and more implicitly to the authority of previous generations, and suffer ourselves less and less to doubt their judgment, or test by our own reason the grounds of their opinions.  The unwillingness of the human intellect and conscience, in their present state of “anarchy,” to sign their own abdication, lie calls “the insurrection of the living against the dead.”  To this complexion has Positive Philosophy come at last!