[115] were:  God, immortality, fraternity, humanity; no attacks on other religions, but respect and honour towards all; gatherings in a family, or in a temple, to encourage one another to practise morality.  Protected by the government sometimes secretly, sometimes openly, it had a certain success among the cultivated classes.

The idea of the lay State was popularized under this rule, and by the end of the century there was virtually religious peace in France.  Under the Consulate (from 1799) the same system continued, but Napoleon ceased to protect Theophilanthropy.  In 1801, though there seems to have been little discontent with the existing arrangement, Napoleon decided to upset it and bring the Pope upon the scene.  The Catholic religion, as that of the majority, was again taken under the special protection of the State, the salaries of the clergy again paid by the nation, and the Papal authority over the Church again recognized within well-defined limits; while full toleration of other religions was maintained.  This was the effect of the Concordat between the French Republic and the Pope.  It is the judgment of a high authority that the nation, if it had been consulted, would have pronounced against the change.  It may be doubted whether this is true.  But Napoleon’s policy

[116] seems to have been prompted by the calculation that, using the Pope as an instrument, he could control the consciences of men, and more easily carry out his plans of empire.

Apart from its ecclesiastical policies and its experiments in new creeds based on the principles of rationalistic thinkers, the French Revolution itself has an interest, in connexion with our subject, as an example of the coercion of reason by an intolerant faith.

The leaders believed that, by applying certain principles, they could regenerate France and show the world how the lasting happiness of mankind can be secured.  They acted in the name of reason, but their principles were articles of faith, which were accepted just as blindly and irrationally as the dogmas of any supernatural creed.  One of these dogmas was the false doctrine of Rousseau that man is a being who is naturally good and loves justice and order.  Another was the illusion that all men are equal by nature.  The puerile conviction prevailed that legislation could completely blot out the past and radically transform the character of a society.  “Liberty, equality, and fraternity” was as much a creed as the Creed of the Apostles; it hypnotized men’s minds like a revelation from on high; and reason had as little part in its propagation as in the spread

[117] of Christianity or of Protestantism.  It meant anything but equality, fraternity, or liberty, especially liberty, when it was translated into action by the fanatical apostles of “Reason,” who were blind to the facts of human nature and defied the facts of econnomics.  Terror, the usual instrument in propagating religions, was never more mercilessly applied.  Any one who questioned the doctrines was a heretic and deserved a heretic’s fate.  And, as in most religious movements, the milder and less unreasonable spirits succumbed to the fanatics.  Never was the name of reason more grievously abused than by those who believed they were inaugurating her reign.