eded in
establishing itself, it was possible to maintain the tolerated doctrines
with a more or less complete freedom. So there arose in Europe a sort
of freedom of thought, not for men, but for Christians; and, 'if we
except France, it is only for Christians that it exists anywhere else at
the present day,' a limitation which has now fortunately ceased to be
altogether exact.[66]

If we have smiled at the ease with which what is rank craftiness in a
Christian is toned down into address in a Mahometan, we may be amused
too at the leniency that describes some of the propagandist methods of
the eighteenth century. Condorcet becomes rapturous as he tells in a
paragraph of fine sustention with what admixture of the wisdom of the
serpent the humane philosophers of his century 'covered the truth with a
veil that prevented it from hurting too weak sight, and left the
pleasure of conjecturing it; caressing prejudices with address, to deal
them the more certain blows; scarcely ever threatening them, nor ever
more than one at once, nor even one in its integrity; sometimes
consoling the enemies of reason by pretending to desire no more than a
half-tolerance in religion and half-liberty in politics; conciliating
despotism while they combated the absurdities of religion, and religion
when they rose against despotism; attacking these two scourges in their
principle, even when they seemed only to bear ill-will to revolting or
ridiculous abuses, and striking these poisonous trees in their very
roots, while they appeared to be doing no more than pruning crooked
branches.'[67] Imagine the holy rage with which such acts would have
been attacked, if Condorcet had happened to be writing about the
Jesuits. Alas! the stern and serene composure of the historical
conscience was as unknown to him as it is always to orthodox apologists.
It is to be said, moreover, that he had less excuse for being without
it, for he rested on the goodness of men, and not, as theologians rest,
on their vileness. It is a most interesting thing, we may notice in
passing, to consider what was the effect upon the Revolution of this
artfulness or prudence with which its theoretic precursors sowed the
seed. Was it as truly wise as Condorcet supposed? Or did it weaken,
almost corrupt, the very roots? Was it the secret of the thoroughness
with which the work of demolition was done? Was it, too, the secret of
the many and disastrous failures in the task of reconstruction?[