creep　into　it　were　less；　on　the　contrary；　there　than　in　most
  Catholic　countries。　　The　Church　of　France　was　infinitely　more
  tolerant　than　it　ever　had　been　previously；　and　than　it　still　was
  among　other　nations。　　Consequently；　the　peculiar　causes　of　this
  phenomenon〃　（the　hatred　which　it　aroused）　〃must　be　looked　for　less
  in　the　condition　of　religion　than　in　that　of　society。〃
  〃We　no　longer；〃　he　says；　shortly　after；　〃ask　in　what　the　Church　of
  that　day　erred　as　a　religious　institution；　but　how　far　it　stood
  opposed　to　the　political　revolution　which　was　at　hand。〃　　And　he　goes
  on　to　show　how　the　principles　of　her　ecclesiastical　government；　and
  her　political　position；　were　such　that　the　philosophes　must　needs
  have　been　her　enemies。　　But　he　mentions　another　fact　which　seems　to
  me　to　belong　neither　to　the　category　of　religion　nor　to　that　of
  politics；　a　fact　which；　if　he　had　done　us　the　honour　to　enlarge　upon
  it；　might　have　led　him　and　his　readers　to　a　more　true　understanding
  of　the　disrepute　into　which　Christianity　had　fallen　in　France。
  〃The　ecclesiastical　authority　had　been　specially　employed　in　keeping
  watch　over　the　progress　of　thought；　and　the　censorship　of　books　was
  a　daily　annoyance　to　the　philosophes。　　By　defending　the　common
  liberties　of　the　human　mind　against　the　Church；　they　were　combating
  in　their　own　cause：　　and　they　began　by　breaking　the　shackles　which
  pressed　most　closely　on　themselves。〃
  Just　so。　　And　they　are　not　to　be　blamed　if　they　pressed　first　and
  most　earnestly　reforms　which　they　knew　by　painful　experience　to　be
  necessary。　　All　reformers　are　wont　thus　to　begin　at　home。　　It　is　to
  their　honour　if；　not　content　with　shaking　off　their　own　fetters；
  they　begin　to　see　that　others　are　fettered　likewise；　and；　reasoning
  from　the　particular　to　the　universal；　to　learn　that　their　own　cause
  is　the　cause　of　mankind。
  There　is；　therefore；　no　reason　to　doubt　that　these　men　were　honest；
  when　they　said　that　they　were　combating；　not　in　their　own　cause
  merely；　but　in　that　of　humanity；　and　that　the　Church　was　combating
  in　her　own　cause；　and　that　of　her　power　and　privilege。　　The　Church
  replied　that　she；　too；　was　combating　for　humanity；　for　its　moral　and
  eternal　well…being。　　But　that　is　just　what　the　philosophes　denied。
  They　said　（and　it　is　but　fair　to　take　a　statement　which　appears　on
  the　face　of　all　their　writings；　which　is　the　one　key…note　on　which
  they　ring　perpetual　changes）；　that　the　cause　of　the　Church　in　France
  was　not　that　of　humanity；　but　of　inhumanity；　not　that　of　nature；　but
  of　unnature；　not　even　that　of　grace；　but　of　disgrace。　　Truely　or
  falsely；　they　complained　that　the　French　clergy　had　not　only
  identified　themselves　with　the　repression　of　free　thought；　and　of
  physical　science；　especially　that　of　the　Newtonian　astronomy；　but
  that　they　had　proved　themselves　utterly　unfit；　for　centuries　past；
  to　exercise　any　censorship　whatsoever　over　the　thoughts　of　men：
  that　they　had　identified　themselves　with　the　cause　of　darkness；　not
  of　light；　with　persecution　and　torture；　with　the　dragonnades　of
  Louis　XIV。；　with　the　murder　of　Calas　and　of　Urban　Grandier；　with
  celibacy；　hysteria；　demonology；　witchcraft；　and　the　shameful　public
  scandals；　like　those　of　Gauffredi；　Grandier；　and　Pere　Giraud；　which
  had　arisen　out　of　mental　disease；　with　forms　of　worship　which　seemed
  to　them　（rightly　or　wrongly）　idolatry；　and　miracles　which　seemed　to
  them　（rightly　or　wrongly）　impostures；　that　the　clergy　interfered
  perpetually　with　the　sanctity　of　family　life；　as　well　as　with　the
  welfare　of　the　state；　that　their　evil　counsels；　and　specially　those
  of　the　Jesuits；　had　been　patent　and　potent　causes　of　much　of　the
  misrule　and　misery　of　Louis　XIV。's　and　XV。's　reigns；　and　that　with
  all　these　heavy　counts　against　them；　their　morality　was　not　such　as
  to　make　other　men　more　moral；　and　was　notat　least　among　the
  hierarchyimproving；　or　likely　to　improve。　　To　a　Mazarin；　a　De
  Retz；　a　Richelieu　（questionable　men　enough）　had　succeeded　a　Dubois；
  a　Rohan；　a　Lomenie　de　Brienne；　a　Maury；　a　Talleyrand；　and　at　the
  revolution　of　1789　thoughtful　Frenchmen　asked；　once　and　for　all；
  what　was　to　be　done　with　a　Church　of　which　these　were　the
  hierophants？
  Whether　these　complaints　affected　the　French　Church　as　a　〃religious〃
  institution；　must　depend　entirely　on　the　meaning　which　is　attached
  to　the　word　〃religion〃：　　that　they　affected　her　on　scientific；
  rational；　and　moral　grounds；　independent　of　any　merely　political
  one；　is　as　patent　as　that　the　attack　based　on　them　was　one…sided；
  virulent；　and　often　somewhat　hypocritical；　considering　the　private
  morals　of　many　of　the　assailants。　　We　knowor　ought　to　knowthat
  within　that　religion　which　seemed　to　the　philosophes　（so　distorted
  and　defaced　had　it　become）　a　nightmare　dream；　crushing　the　life　out
  of　mankind；　there　lie　elements　divine；　eternal；　necessary　for　man　in
  this　life　and　the　life　to　come。　　But　we　are　bound　to　askHad　they　a
  fair　chance　of　knowing　what　we　know？　　Have　we　proof　that　their
  hatred　was　against　all　religion；　or　only　against　that　which　they　saw
  around　them？　　Have　we　proof　that　they　would　have　equally　hated；　had
  they　been　in　permanent　contact　with　them；　creeds　more　free　from
  certain　faults　which　seemed　to　them；　in　the　case　of　the　French
  Church；　ineradicable　and　inexpiable？　　Till　then　we　must　have
  charitywhich　is　justiceeven　for　the　philosophes　of　the
  eighteenth　century。
  This　view　of　the　case　had　been　surely　overlooked　by　M。　de
  Tocqueville；　when　he　tried　to　explain　by　the　fear　of　revolutions；
  the　fact　that　both　in　America　and　in　England；　〃while　the　boldest
  political　doctrines　of　the　eighteenth…century　philosophers　have　been
  adopted；　their　anti…religious　doctrines　have　made　no　way。〃
  He　confesses　that；　〃Among　the　English；　French　irreligious　philosophy
  had　been　preached；　even　before　the　greater　part　of　the　French
  philosophers　were　born。　　It　was　Bolingbroke　who　set　up　Voltaire。
  Throughout　the　eighteenth　century　infidelity　had　celebrated
  champions　in　England。　　Able　writers　and　profound　thinkers　espoused
  that　cause；　but　they　were　never　able　to　render　it　triumphant　as　in
  France。〃　　Of　these　facts　there　can　be　no　doubt：　　but　the　cause　which
  he　gives　for　the　failure　of　infidelity　will　surely　sound　new　and
  strange　to　those　who　know　the　English　literature　and　history　of　that
  century。　　It　was；　he　says；　〃inasmuch　as　all　those　who　had　anything
  to　fear　from　revolutions；　eagerly　came　to　the　rescue　of　the
  established　faith。〃　　Surely　there　was　no　talk　of　revolutions；　no
  wish；　expressed　or　concealed；　to　overthrow　either　government　or
  society；　in　the　aristocratic　clique　to　whom　English　infidelity　was
  confined。　　Such　was；　at　least；　the　opinion　of　Voltaire；　who　boasted
  that　〃All　the　works　of　the　modern　philosophers　together　would　never
  make　as　much　noise　in　the　world　as　was　made　in　former　days　by　the
  disputes　of　the　Cordeliers　about　the　shape　of　their　sleeves　and
  hoods。〃　　If　（as　M。　de　Tocqueville　says）　Bolingbroke　set　up　Voltaire；
  neither　master　nor　pupil　had　any　more　leaning　than　Hobbes　had　toward
  a　democracy　which　was　not　dreaded　in　those　days　because　it　had　never
  been　heard　of。　　And　if　（as　M。　de　Tocqueville　heartily　allows）　the
  English　apologists　of　Christianity　triumphed；　at　least　for　the　time
  being；　the　cause　of　their　triumph　must　be　sought　in　the　plain　fact
  that　such　men　as　Berkeley；　Butler；　and　Paley；　each　according　to　his
  light；　fought　the　battle　fairly；　on　the　common　ground　of　reason　and
  philosophy；　instead　of　on　that　of　tradition　and　authority；　and　that
  the　forms　of　Christianity　current　in　Englandwhether　Quaker；
  Puritan；　or　Anglicanoffended；　less　than　that　current　in　France；
  the　common…sense　and　the　human　instincts　of　the　many；　or　of　the
  sceptics　themselves。＇
  But　the　eighteenth　century　saw　another　movement；　all　the　more
  powerful；　perhaps；　because　it　was　continually　changing　its　shape；
  even　its　purpose；　and　gaining　fresh　life　and　fresh　adherents　with
  every　change。　　Propagated　at　first　by　men　of　the　school　of　Locke；　it
  became　at　last　a　protest　against　the　materialism　of　that　school；　on
  behalf　of　all　that　is；　or　calls　itself；　supernatural　and　mysterious。
  Abjuring；　and　honestly；　all　politics；　it　found　itself　sucked　into
  the　political　whirlpool　in　spite　of　itself；　as　all　human　interests
  which　have　any　life　in　them　must　be　at　last。　　It　became　an　active
  promoter　of　the　Revolution；　then　it　helped　to　destroy　the
  Revolution；　when　that　had；　under　Napoleon；　become　a　levelling
  despotism；　then　it　helped；　as　actively；　to　keep　revolutionary
  principles　alive；　after　the　reaction　of　1815：a　Protean
  institution；　whose　power　we　in　England　are　as　apt　to　undervalue　as
  the　governments　of　the　Continent　were　apt；　during　the　eighteenth
  century；　to　exaggerate　it。　　I　mean；　of　course；　Freemasonry；　and　the
  secret　societies　which；　honestly　and　honourably　disowned　by
  Freemasonry；　yet　have　either　copied　it；　or　actually　sprung　out　of
  it。　　In　England；　Freemasonry