se it has had no policy but that of _negation_; it
inherits the theories of Lutherans, Calvinists, and Protestants on the
terrible words "liberty," "tolerance," "progress," and "philosophy." Two
centuries have been employed by the opponents of power in establishing
the doubtful doctrine of the _libre arbitre_,--liberty of will. Two
other centuries were employed in developing the first corollary
of liberty of will, namely, liberty of conscience. Our century is
endeavoring to establish the second, namely, political liberty.

Placed between the ground already lost and the ground still to be
defended, Catherine and the Church proclaimed the salutary principle of
modern societies, _una fides, unus dominus_, using their power of
life and death upon the innovators. Though Catherine was vanquished,
succeeding centuries have proved her justification. The product of
liberty of will, religious liberty, and political liberty (not, observe
this, to be confounded with civil liberty) is the France of to-day.
What is the France of 1840? A country occupied exclusively with material
interests,--without patriotism, without conscience; where power has
no vigor; where election, the fruit of liberty of will and political
liberty, lifts to the surface none but commonplace men; where brute
force has now become a necessity against popular violence; where
discussion, spreading into everything, stifles the action of legislative
bodies; where money rules all questions; where individualism--the
dreadful product of the division of property _ad infinitum_--will
suppress the family and devour all, even the nation, which egoism will
some day deliver over to invasion. Men will say, "Why not the Czar?"
just as they said, "Why not the Duc d'Orleans?" We don't cling to many
things even now; but fifty years hence we shall cling to nothing.

Thus, according to Catherine de' Medici and according to all those who
believe in a well-ordered society, in _social man_, the subject cannot
have liberty of will, ought not to _teach_ the dogma of liberty of
conscience, or demand political liberty. But, as no society can exist
without guarantees granted to the subject against the sovereign, there
results for the subject _liberties_ subject to restriction. Liberty, no;
liberties, yes,--precise and well-defined liberties. That is in harmony
with the nature of things.

It is, assuredly, beyond the reach of human power to prevent the
liberty of thought; and no sovereign c