quiet of industrial communities will no longer be disturbed by a ncmad labouring class, an evidence at once of the neglect of the superiors, of the degradation of the inferiors. The above remarks, however, show that, to attain its complete form, the sociocratic constitution of the proletariate must await the advent of a patriciate worthy of the name, though the regeneration of the plebeians must precede and even prepare the way for that of the patricians. If we combine our observations, they give a sufficient pic- Conclusion. ture of the Sociocracy in the concrete to support the statement, that the Positive religion in its abstract form is competent to regulate human life in all its parts, through its great fundamental theory, the theory of the Great Being. In this way the constitution of Sociocracy is the continuous developement of the sacred formula of Positivism, which consequently identifies private with public life. By the laws of her being, woman gives the impulse, acted on by which the patriciate becomes the organ of order, the proletariate the organ of progress, the priesthood systematically combining order with progress. On the general basis here laid, and in accordance with the original plan, the second chapter is devoted to an exposition in detail of the worship which has to govern our affective life by forming the regular connection between the objective and subjective stages of our existence. precedes the the Regime. CHAPTER II. GENERAL VIEW OF THE AFFECTIVE LIFE, DEFINITIVE SYSTEMATISATION OF THE POSITIVE SYSTEM OF WORSHIP. The Worship THE nature and object of this chapter will be set in a clear light Dogma and by the introductory remarks elicited by its heading, in that it places, in the system of the Positive religion, the worship not merely before the regime but before the doctrine. This unusual arrangement is a modification of the order adopted in the second volume in the General Theory of Religion (Vol. II. pp. 17-20). It requires then a special justification. For this, I may confine myself to the simple enunciation of the considerations which suggested it to me. The statement of them will, I hope, show the change to be quite legitimate, and the propriety of it characteristic of the true religion. Reasons for the previous arrangement. Reasons against it. From an excess of deference for my Catholic predecessors, I was led originally to place the doctrine before the worship, without asking myself the question: Was this arrangement in as full accordance with the genius of the new synthesis as it was with that of the older? An over-estimate of the importance of logical sequence induced me subsequently to adhere to it, in order that the worship might rest on a scientific basis. But the practical application of the original arrangement has gradually convinced me that it was defective synthetically. In the first place, it is at issue with the fundamental formula of Positivism, in which love precedes order, as order precedes progress; and love is the domain of the worship, order that of the doctrine, progress of the life. In the second place, it is contradicted by the general theory of human nature, which puts feeling above intelligence and activity, the two indispensable servants of feeling. Lastly, it is at variance with the regular course of Positive education, in which the succession is: the education of the feelings, the education of the intellect, and the education of our active powers. This threefold discrepancy is a sufficient justification of the new arrangement, implicitly announced in the last chapter, when I placed art above science. All who can appreciate the natural pre-eminence of questions of order, will be at once conscious of the importance attaching to this inversion of the previous arrangement, condensing as it does the general contrast between Theologism and Positivism. But, to clear up the point, I must first enter on a direct investigation of the grounds of the original arrangement. The strongest was the fictitious character of the provisional religion, when worship was paid to imaginary beings, and therefore must have the doctrines to rest upon as the sole source of our knowledge of those beings. This indispensable prerequisite, never systematised in Polytheism, was reduced to a system under its Monotheistic concentration. But in both stages a custom of universal adoption heralded the ultimate predominance of the worship, for it was the worship which habitually gave its designation to the whole religious system. The discre fies the pancy justi change. arrangement This first arrangement, then, is to be viewed as a temporary The previous inversion of the normal order, though the adoption of the latter temporary. was impossible till such time as our adoration should be paid to a being by its nature within the cognisance of all. It is true that, as yet, the education of our feelings does not propose the knowledge of Humanity as its aim, but the last chapter has so far stated the whole Positive doctrine as to warrant our proceeding to expound the worship without any violation of rational method. the expres sion of the synthetical state. The worship is the best expression of the state of complete The Worship synthesis, the state in which all our knowledge, scientific and practical, finds its condensation in Morals. The grand object of religion being to teach us to live for others, it must essentially consist in regulating the direct cultivation of our sympathetic instincts. In fact such would be its sole function, were it not that our physical wants necessitate the addition both of the doctrine and the regime, so by man's own exertions to give an altruistic character to the natural egoism of his incessant activity. To complete the justification of the order ultimately adopted, it is necessary to give greater precision to the above explanation of the provisional arrangement, by presenting it as simply coeval with Theologism, properly so called, having no Again the affinity between Fetichism and Positivism. Superior synthetic power of the Religion of antecedent in Fetichism. In point of fact, religion in Fetichism was worship, and nothing more. It was so absolutely spontaneous that its dogmatic element was a mere matter of intuition; and its regime was limited to the exercise of our sympathies, such was the then rudimentary condition of human activity. Consequently the definitive order adopted by the Positive religion is but the systematisation of the instinctive practice of the first childhood of the race, through the final removal of an anomaly peculiar to its second childhood-and in an eminent degree harmonising with its adolescence. This fresh contact between the two extreme syntheses which are ultimately destined to coalesce, is possible, from the fact that in both alike the objects of worship are actual beings, and come within our immediate cognisance. There is this difference, that, in the primæval state, adoration was objective and simple, in the normal state it is subjective and complex; but it is a difference which will not affect the character of spontaneity common to the two, when Positive education shall have become sufficiently general. The Positivist worships results, the Fetichist worships materials; but both alike invoke the protection of the same supreme power, only their conceptions of that power are distinct, yet not irreconcilable. The two forms, then, the instinctive and systematic, under which the religion of Humanity successively presents itself, Humanity. alike disclaim the inversion, necessitated provisionally by the intermediate synthesis, but disappearing forever in the ultimate combination of the extremes. In both forms there is a natural correlation between the worship and the life, whereas Theologism, even as Polytheism, could never bring the two into satisfactory agreement. The definitive order of the three parts of religion furnishes a decisive proof of the superiority of Positivism in point of synthesis, and justifies the normal condensation of the law of human progress when we state it as an increasing tendency to unity. Religion is In accordance with this indispensable introduction, I have now to treat of religion as consisting in the worship; and in fact the worship would suffice for our discipline, could our external circumstances become such as to allow it. The hypothesis can never be in the full sense realised, but the aggregate progress of mankind is bringing us constantly nearer to it, by constantly lessening the relative importance of material wants, this change being a consequence of the accumulations due to our foresight, and the increase of power they give us. Still, in assigning the worship its legitimate rank, we must duly take into account its necessary connection with the doctrine and the life, both at all times indispensable, though in a decreasing ratio, to its fulfilment of its moral aim. The agreement of the three is sufficiently indicated in the Positivist formula, if we take its three terms as answering to the three divisions of time. For love, the immediate source of the worship, in the main has reference to the future; order, the intellectual province of the doctrine, is derived principally from the past; progress, the practical object of the life, stands in closer relation with the present. Now, it is the future which becomes, and rightly, the more prominent consideration in proportion as man's action becomes more collective in its character. During the initiation of the race, man constantly laboured for his successors, in the Family originally, then in the State. It remains for him, in the period of maturity, to guide this instinct systematically, and make it subserve the interests of Posterity in the widest sense. The paramount importance attached to the future is adequate as the distinctive feature of the normal state of Humanity, pointing as it does to deliberate action, and deliberate action implies constant prevision. And yet, at first sight, such a view, whilst ulteriorly pointing to the supremacy of the worship, would seem to make it intellectually dependent on the doctrine, as necessary for the interpretation of the past, on which rests our conception of the future. The apparent contradiction disappears if we distinguish between the analytical and synthetical arrangements, both of which are admissible for the universal doctrine. In fact, it is on the synthetical form that the worship must rest; it is this which it idealises, and by idealising developes. So little is the analytical a prerequisite, that the worship is a necessary condition of its right formation. Its actual importance is solely an empirical result of the objective character of the scientific process required as a preparation for the Positive method. In his adult period, man will correct the habits provisionally formed, and satisfy reason and feeling alike, by constantly subordinating analysis to synthesis. The two forms of the doctrinal system will then, each in accordance with its |