the labor which he undertook, we are not, therefore, to measure his
results by the standard of the first, but by that of the second volume.
It is not, then, the Science of History which he is striving to write;
but only something 'which will interest the thinkers of this age, and
something, perhaps, on which posterity may build.' His task, as thus
abridged, was confined to the endeavor to establish the 'four leading
propositions, which, according to my [his] view, are to be deemed the
basis of the history of civilization;' that is, the basis of a Science
of History. These propositions, given in a previous article, may be here
repeated:

'1st. That the progress of mankind depends on the success with
which the laws of phenomena are investigated, and on the extent to
which a knowledge of those laws is diffused. 2d. That before such
investigation can begin, a spirit of scepticism must arise, which,
at first aiding the investigation, is afterward aided by it. 3d.
That the discoveries thus made, increase the influence of
intellectual truths, and diminish, relatively, not absolutely, the
influence of moral truths; moral truths being more stationary than
intellectual truths, and receiving fewer additions. 4th. That the
great enemy of this movement, and therefore the great enemy of
civilization, is the protective spirit; by which I mean the notion
that society cannot prosper unless the affairs of life are watched
over and protected at nearly every turn by the state and the
church; the state teaching men what to do, and the church teaching
them what they are to believe.'

In the first paper of this series, which was devoted to the examination
of the third proposition as announced by Mr. Buckle and substantially
affirmed by Professor Draper, together with the consideration of the