present the theologic doctrine, no true philosophy can forget that the formation and first development of modern societies were accomplished under its benevolent tutelage; which I hope sufficiently to demonstrate in the historical portion of this work.  But it is not the less incontestably true that, for about three centuries, its influence has been, amongst the nations most advanced, essentially retrograde, notwithstanding the partial services it has throughout that period rendered.  It would be superfluous to enter here into a special discussion of this doctrine, in order to show its extreme insufficiency at the present day.  The deplorable absence of all sound views of social organization can alone account for the absurd project of giving, in these times, for the support of social order, a political system which has already been found unable to sustain itself before the spontaneous progress of intelligence and of society.  The historical analysis which we shall subsequently institute of the successive changes which have gradually brought about the entire dissolution of the catholic and feudal system, will demonstrate, better than any direct argument, its radical and irrevocable decay.  The theologic school has generally no other method of explaining this decomposition of the old system than by causes merely accidental or personal, out of all reasonable proportion with the magnitude of the results; or else, when hard driven, it has recourse to its ordinary artifice, and attempts to explain all by an appeal to the will of Providence, to whom is ascribed the intention of raising a time of trial for the social order, of which the commencement, the duration, and the character, are all left equally obscure."...—­P.14

“In a point of view strictly logical, the social problem might be stated thus:—­construct a doctrine that shall be so rationally conceived that it shall be found, as it develops itself, to be still always consistent with its own principles.  Neither of the existing doctrines satisfies this condition, even by the rudest approximation.  Both display numerous and direct contradictions, and on important points.  By this alone their utter insufficiency is clearly exhibited.  The doctrine which shall fulfil this condition, will, from this test, be recognized as the one capable of reorganizing society; for it is an intellectual reorganization that is first wanted—­a re-establishment of a real and durable harmony amongst our social ideas, disturbed and shaken to the very foundation.  Should this regeneration be accomplished in one intelligence only, (and such must necessarily be its manner of commencement,) its extension would be certain; for the number of intelligences to be convinced can have no influence except as a question of time.  I shall not fail to point out, when the proper opportunity arrives, the eminent superiority, in this respect, of the positive philosophy, which, once extended to social phenomena, will necessarily combine the ideas of men in a strict and complete manner, which in no other way can be attained.”—­P. 20.

M. Comte then mentions some of the inconsistencies of the theologic school.