conclude that Weishaupt had, like Diderot and d'Holbach, no other
God than Nature herself. From his doctrine would naturally follow
the German ultra-Hegelianism and the system of anarchy recently
developed in France, of which the physiognomy suggests a foreign
origin.[515]

This summary of the aims of the Illuminati, which absolutely
corroborates the view of Barruel and Robison, is confirmed in detail by
the Socialist Freethinker of the nineteenth century Louis Blanc, who in
his remarkable chapter on the "Revolutionnaires Mystiques" refers to
Weishaupt as "One of the profoundest conspirators who have ever
existed."[516] George Sand also, Socialist and _intime_ of the
Freemasons, wrote of "the European conspiracy of Illuminism" and the
immense influence exercised by the secret societies of "mystic Germany."
To say, then, that Barruel and Robison were alone in proclaiming the
danger of Illuminism is simply a deliberate perversion of the truth, and
it is difficult to understand why English Freemasons should have allowed
themselves to be misled on this question.

Thus the _Masonic Cyclopaedia_ observes that the Illuminati "were, as a
rule, men of the strictest morality and humanity, and the ideas they
sought to instil were those which have found universal acceptance in our
own times." Preston, in his _Illustrations of Masonry_, also does his
best to gloss over the faults of the Order, and even "the historian of
Freemasonry" devotes to its founder this astounding apology. After
describing Weishaupt as the victim of Jesuit intrigue, Mr. Gould goes on
to say:

He conceived the idea of combating his foes with their own
weapons, and forming a society of young men, enthusiastic in the
cause of humanity, who should gradually be trained to work as one
man to one end--the destruction of evil and the enhancement of good
in this world. Unfortunately he had unconsciously imbibed that most
pernicious doctrine that the end justifies the means, and his whole
plan reveals the effects of his youthful teaching.... The man
himself was without guile, ignorant of men, knowing them only by
books, a learned professor, an enthusiast who took a wrong course
in all innocence, and the faults of his head have been heavily
visited upon his memory in spite of the rare qualities of his
heart.[517]

One can only conclude that these extraordinary exonerations of an Or