CHAPTER VII.

PROXIMATE CAUSES OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION AFTER THE MIDDLE OF THE

EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.

In the last chapter but one, I have attempted to ascertain what those

circumstances were which, almost immediately after the death of Louis

XIV., prepared the way for the French Revolution. The result of the

inquiry has been, that the French intellect was stimulated into activity

by the examples and teachings of England; and that this stimulus caused,

or at all events encouraged, a great breach between the government of

France and its literature;--a breach the more remarkable, because during

the reign of Louis XIV. the literature, notwithstanding its temporary

brilliancy, had been invariably submissive, and had intimately allied

itself with the government, which was always ready to reward its

services. We have also seen that, this rupture having arisen between the

governing classes and the intellectual classes, it followed, that the

former, true to their ancient instincts, began to chastise that spirit

of inquiry to which they were unaccustomed: hence those persecutions

which, with hardly a single exception, were directed against every man

of letters, and hence too those systematic attempts to reduce literature

to a subserviency similar to that in which it had been held under Louis

XIV. It has, moreover, appeared, that the great Frenchmen of the

eighteenth century, though smarting from the injuries constantly

inflicted on them by the government and the church, abstained from

attacking the government, but directed all their hostility against the

church. This apparent anomaly, of the religious institutions being

assailed, and the political institutions being spared, has been shown to

be a perfectly natural circumstance, arising out of the antecedents of

the French nation; and an attempt has been made to explain what those

antecedents were, and how they acted. In the present chapter, I purpose

to complete this inquiry by examining the next great stage in the

history of the French mind. It was needful that, before both church and

state could fall, men should change the ground of their hostility, and

should attack political abuses with the zeal they had hitherto reserved

for religious ones. The question, therefore, now arises, as to the

circumstances under which this change took place, and the period when it

actually occurred.

The circumstances which accompanied this great change are, as we shall

presently see, very complicated; and, as they have never yet been

studied in connexion with each other, I shall, in the remaining part of

this volume, examine them at considerable length. On this point it will,

I think, be practicable to arrive at some precise and well-defined

results respecting the history of the French Revolution. But the other

point, namely, the time at which the change took place, is not only much

more obscure, but by its nature will never admit of complete precision.

This, however, is a deficiency it possesses in common with every other

change in the history of man. The circumstances of each change may

always be known, provided the evidence is ample and authentic. But no

amount of evidence can enable us to fix the date of the change itself.

That to which attention is usually drawn by the compilers of history is,

not the change, but is merely the external result which follows the

change. The real history of the human race is the history of tendencies

which are perceived by the mind, and not of events which are discerned

by the senses. It is on this account that no historical epoch will ever

admit of that chronological precision familiar to antiquaries and

genealogists. The death of a prince, the loss of a battle, and the

change of a dynasty, are matters which fall entirely within the province

of the senses; and the moment in which they happen can be recorded by

the most ordinary observers. But those great intellectual revolutions

upon which all other revolutions are based, cannot be measured by so

simple a standard. To trace the movements of the human mind, it is

necessary to contemplate it under several aspects, and then coördinate

the results of what we have separately studied. By this means we arrive

at certain general conclusions, which, like the ordinary estimate of

averages, increase in value in proportion as we increase the number of

instances from which they are collected. That this is a safe and

available method, appears not only from the history of physical

knowledge,[952] but also from the fact, that it is the basis of the

empirical maxims by which all men of sound understanding are guided in

those ordinary transactions of life to which the generalizations of

science have not yet been applied. Indeed such maxims, which are highly

valuable, and which in their aggregate form what is called common sense,

are never collected with any thing like the precautions that the

philosophic historian ought to feel himself bound to employ.

[952] For a popular but able view of the value of averages in scientific

inquiries, see _Herschel's Disc. on Nat. Philos._ pp. 215-219.

The real objection, therefore, to generalizations respecting the

development of the intellect of a nation is, not that they want

certainty, but that they lack precision. This is just the point at which

the historian diverges from the annalist. That the English intellect,

for example, is gradually becoming more democratic, or, as it is termed,

more liberal, is as certain as that the crown of this country is worn by

Queen Victoria. But though both these statements are equally certain,

the latter statement is more precise. We can tell the very day on which

the Queen ascended the throne; the moment of her death will be known

with equal precision; and there can be no doubt that many other

particulars respecting her will be minutely and accurately preserved. In

tracing, however, the growth of English liberalism, all such exactness

deserts us. We can point out the year in which the Reform Bill was

passed; but who can point out the year in which the Reform Bill first

became necessary? In the same way, that the Jews will be admitted into

parliament, is as certain as that the Catholics have been admitted. Both

these measures are the inevitable result of that increasing indifference

to theological disputes, which must now be obvious to every man who does

not wilfully shut his eyes. But while we know the hour in which the bill

for Catholic emancipation received the assent of the crown, there is no

one now living who can tell even the year in which similar justice will

be granted to the Jews. Both events are equally certain, but both events

are not equally precise.

This distinction between certainty and precision I have stated at some

length, because it seems to be little understood,[953] and because it is

intimately connected with the subject now before us. The fact of the

French intellect having, during the eighteenth century, passed through

two totally distinct epochs, can be proved by every description of

evidence; but it is impossible to ascertain the precise time when one

epoch succeeded the other. All that we can do is, to compare the

different indications which the history of that age presents, and arrive

at an approximation which may guide future inquirers. It would perhaps

be more prudent to avoid making any particular statement; but as the

employment of dates seems necessary to bring such matters clearly before

the mind, I will, by way of provisional hypothesis, fix on the year

1750, as the period when those agitations of society which caused the

French Revolution entered into their second and political stage.

[953] As we see in the pretensions set forth by mathematicians, who

often suppose that an amount of certainty can be attained in

their own pursuits not to be found in any other. This error has

probably arisen, as Locke suggests, from confusing clearness with

certainty. _Essay on Human Understanding_, book iv. chap. ii.

secs. 9 and 10, in _Works_, vol. ii. pp. 73, 74. See also

_Comte_, _Philos. Pos._ vol. i. p. 103, where it is justly

observed, that all branches of knowledge capable of being

generalized into sciences admit of equal certainty, but not of

equal precision: 'si d'après l'explication précédente, les

diverses sciences doivent nécessairement présenter une précision

très-inégale, il n'en est nullement ainsi de leur certitude.'

This is handled unsatisfactorily by Montucla (_Hist. des

Mathémat._ vol. i. p. 33), who says, that the principal cause of

the peculiar certainty reached by the mathematician is, that

'd'une idée claire il ne déduit que des conséquences claires et

incontestables.' Similarly, Cudworth (_Intellect. System_, vol.

iii. p. 377): 'nay the very essence of truth here is this clear

perceptibility, or intelligibility.' On the other hand, Kant, a

far deeper thinker, avoided this confusion, by making

mathematical clearness the mark of a _kind_ of certainty rather

than of a _degree_ of it: 'Die mathematische Gewissheit heisst

auch Evidenz, weil ein intuitives Erkenntniss klarer ist, als ein

discursives. Obgleich also beides, das mathematische und das

philosophische Vernunfterkenntniss an sich gleich gewiss ist, so

ist doch die Art der Gewissheit in beiden verschieden.' _Logik_,

_Einleitung_, sec. 9, in _Kant's Werke_, vol. i. p. 399. On the

opinions of the ancients respecting certainty, compare _Matter_,

_Hist. de l'Ecole d'Alexandrie_, vol. i. p. 195, with _Ritter's

Hist. of Ancient Philos._ vol. ii. p. 46, vol. iii. pp. 74, 426,

427, 484, 614.

That this was about the period when the great movement, hitherto

directed against the church, began to be turned against the state, is an

inference which many circumstances seem to warrant. We know on the best

authority, that towards the year 1750, the French began their celebrated

inquiries respecting political economy,[954] and that, in their attempt

to raise it to a science, they were led to perceive the immense injury

which the interference of government had produced on the material

interests of the country.[955] Hence a conviction arose that, even in

regard to the accumulation of wealth, the authority possessed by the

rulers of France was mischievous, since it enabled them, under the

notion of protecting commerce, to trouble the freedom of individual

action, and to prevent trade from running into those profitable channels

which traders are best able to select for themselves. Scarcely had a

knowledge of this important truth been diffused, when its consequences

were quickly seen in the national literature, and in the habits of

national thought. The sudden increase in France of works relating to

finance and to other questions of government, is, indeed, one of the

most remarkable features of that age. With such rapidity did the

movement spread, that we are told that, soon after 1755, the economists

effected a schism between the nation and the government;[956] and

Voltaire, writing in 1759, complains that the charms of lighter

literature were entirely neglected amidst the general zeal for these new

studies.[957] It is not necessary to follow the subsequent history of

this great change; nor need I trace the influence exercised shortly

before the Revolution by the later economists, and particularly by

Turgot, the most eminent of their leaders.[958] It is enough to say,

that within about twenty years after the movement was first clearly

seen, the taste for economical and financial inquiries became so common,

that it penetrated those parts of society where habits of thought are

not very frequent; since we find that, even in fashionable life, the

conversation no longer turned upon new poems and new plays, but upon

political questions, and subjects immediately connected with them.[959]

Indeed, when Necker, in 1781, published his celebrated Report on the

Finances of France, the eagerness to obtain it was beyond all bounds;

six thousand copies were sold the first day; and the demand still

increasing, two presses were kept constantly at work in order to satisfy

the universal curiosity.[960] And what makes the democratic tendency of

all this the more obvious is, that Necker was at that time one of the

servants of the crown; so that his work, looking at its general spirit,

has been truly called an appeal to the people against the king by one of

the ministers of the king himself.[961]

[954] 'Vers 1750, deux hommes de génie, observateurs judicieux et

profonds, conduits par une force d'attention très-soutenue à une

logique rigoureuse, animés d'un noble amour pour la patrie et

pour l'humanité, M. Quesnay et M. de Gournay, s'occupèrent avec

suite de savoir si la nature des choses n'indiquerait pas une

science de l'économie politique, et quels seraient les principes

de cette science.' _Additions aux [OE]uvres de Turgot_, vol. iii.

p. 310. M. Blanqui (_Hist. de l'Economie Politique_, vol. ii. p.

78) also says, 'vers l'année 1750;' and Voltaire (_Dict. Philos._

article _Blé_, in _[OE]uvres_, vol. xxxvii. p. 384) says, 'vers

l'an 1750, la nation, rassasiée de vers, de tragédies, de

comédies, d'opéra, de romans, d'histoires romanesques, de

réflexions morales plus romanesques encore, et de disputes

théologiques sur la grâce et sur les convulsions, se mit enfin a

raisonner sur les blés.'

[955] The revolutionary tendency of this economical movement is noticed

in _Alison's Europe_, vol. i. pp. 184, 185; where, however, its

commencement is erroneously assigned to 'about the year 1761.'

See also, on the hostility this caused against government, _Mém.

de Campan_, vol. i. pp. 7, 8; _Mem. of Mallet du Pan_, vol. i. p.

32; and _Barruel_, _Hist. du Jacobinisme_, vol. i. p. 193,

vol. ii. p. 152.

[956] 'D'ailleurs la nation s'étoit accoutumée à se séparer toujours de

plus en plus de son gouvernement, en raison même de ce que ses

écrivains avoient commencé à aborder les études politiques.

C'étoit l'époque où la secte des économistes se donnoit le plus

de mouvement, depuis que le marquis de Mirabeau avoit publié, en

1755, son _Ami des Hommes_.' _Sismondi_, _Hist. des Franç._ vol.

xxix. p. 269. Compare _Tocqueville_, _Règne de Louis XV_, vol.

ii. p. 58. In this same year, 1755, Goldsmith was in Paris, and

was so struck by the progress of insubordination, that he

foretold the freedom of the people; though I need hardly say that

he was not a man to understand the movement of the economists.

_Prior's Life of Goldsmith_, vol. i. pp. 198, 199; _Forster's

Life of Goldsmith_, vol. i. p. 66.

[957] In February 1759, he writes to Madame du Boccage: 'Il me paraît

que les grâces et le bon goût sont bannis de France, et ont cédé

la place à la métaphysique embrouillée, à la politique des

cerveaux creux, à des discussions énormes sur les finances, sur

le commerce, sur la population, qui ne mettront jamais dans

l'état ni un écu, ni un homme de plus.' _[OE]uvres de Voltaire_,

vol. lx. p. 485. In 1763 (vol. lxiii. p. 204): 'Adieu, nos beaux

arts, si les choses continuent comme elles sont. La rage des

remontrances et des projets sur les finances a saisi la nation.'

Many of the ablest men being thus drawn off from mere literary

pursuits, there began, about twenty years before the Revolution,

a marked deterioration in style, particularly among prose

writers. Compare _Lettres de Dudeffand à Walpole_, vol. ii. p.

358, vol. iii. pp. 163, 299; _Mém. de Genlis_, vol. ii. p. 374,

vol. v. p. 123, vol. viii. pp. 180, 275; _Mercier sur Rousseau_,

vol. ii. p. 151.

[958] Georgel, who hated Turgot, says of him: 'son cabinet et ses

bureaux se transformèrent en ateliers où les économistes

forgeoient leur système et leurs spéculations.' _Mém. de

Georgel_, vol. i. p. 406: see also _Blanqui_, _Hist. de l'Écon.

Politique_, vol. ii. pp. 96-112; _Condorcet_, _Vie de Turgot_,

pp. 32-35; _Twiss_, _Progress of Political Econ._ pp. 142 seq.

[959] Sismondi, under the year 1774, notices 'les écrits innombrables

que chaque jour voyoit éclore sur la politique, et qui avoient

désormais remplacé dans l'intérêt des salons ces nouveautés

littéraires, ces vers, ces anecdotes galantes, dont peu d'années

auparavant le public étoit uniquement occupé.' _Hist. des

Français_, vol. xxix. p. 495; and a similar remark in

_Schlosser's Eighteenth Century_, vol. ii. p. 126.

[960] See the account, written in Feb. 1781, in _Grimm_, _Corr. Lit._

vol. xi. 260, where it is said of Necker's _Compte Rendu_, 'La

sensation qu'a faite cet ouvrage est, je crois, sans exemple; il

s'en est débité plus de six mille exemplaires le jour même qu'il

a paru, et depuis, le travail continuel de deux imprimeries n'a

pu suffire encore aux demandes multipliées de la capitale, des

provinces, et des pays étrangers.' Ségur (_Souvenirs_, vol. i. p.

138) mentions, that Necker's work was 'dans la poche de tous les

abbés, et sur la toilette de toutes les dames.' The daughter of

Necker, Madame de Staël, says of her father's work,

_Administration des Finances_, 'on en vendit quatre-vingt mille

exemplaires.' _De Staël sur la Révolution_, vol. i. p. 111.

[961] The expression of the Baron de Montyon: see _Adolphus's History of

George III._ vol. iv. p. 290; and on the revolutionary tendency

of Necker's financial works, _Soulavie_, _Règne de Louis XVI_,

vol. ii. pp. xxxvii. xxxviii., vol. iv. pp. 18, 143. Necker

published a justification of his book, 'malgré la défense du

roi.' _Du Mesnil_, _Mém. sur Le Brun_, p. 108.

This evidence of the remarkable change which, in or about 1750, the

French mind underwent, and which formed what I term the second epoch of

the eighteenth century, might be easily strengthened by a wider survey

of the literature of that time. Immediately after the middle of the

century, Rousseau published those eloquent works, which exercised

immense influence, and in which the rise of the new epoch is very

observable; for this most powerful writer abstained from those attacks

on Christianity,[962] which unhappily had been too frequent, and exerted

himself almost exclusively against the civil and political abuses of the

existing society.[963] To trace the effects which this wonderful, but in

some instances misguided, man produced on the mind of his own and of the

succeeding generation, would occupy too large a share of this

Introduction; though the inquiry is full of interest, and is one which

it were to be wished some competent historian would undertake.[964]

Inasmuch, however, as the philosophy of Rousseau was itself only a

single phase of a far larger movement, I shall at present pass over the

individual, in order to consider the general spirit of an age in which

he played a vast, but still a subsidiary part.

[962] So far as I remember, there is not a single instance in any of

his works; and those who assail him on this ground should adduce

the passages on which they rely, instead of bringing vague

general charges. Compare _Life of Rousseau_, in _Brougham's Men

of Letters_, vol. i. p. 189; _Stäudlin_, _Gesch. der theolog.

Wissenschaften_, vol. ii. p. 442; _Mercier sur Rousseau_, 1791,

vol. i. pp. 27-32, vol. ii. pp. 279, 280.

[963] 'Rousseau, qui déjà en 1753 avoit touché aux bases mêmes de la

société humaine, dans son _Discours sur l'origine de l'inégalité

parmi les hommes_.' _Sismondi_, vol. xxix. p. 270. Schlosser

(_Hist. of the Eighteenth Century_, vol. i. p. 138) notices 'the

entirely new system of absolute democracy which was brought

forward by J. J. Rousseau;' see also p. 289, and _Soulavie_,

_Règne de Louis XVI_, vol. v. p. 208.

[964] Napoleon said to Stanislas Girardin respecting Rousseau, 'sans lui

la France n'auroit pas eu de révolution.' _Holland's Foreign

Reminiscences_, Lond. 1850, p. 261. This is certainly an

exaggeration; but the influence of Rousseau was, during the

latter half of the eighteenth century, most extraordinary. In

1765, Hume writes from Paris: 'It is impossible to express or

imagine the enthusiasm of this nation in his favour; ... no

person ever so much engaged their attention as Rousseau. Voltaire

and every body else are quite eclipsed by him.' _Burton's Life of

Hume_, vol. ii. p. 299. A letter written in 1754 (in _Grimm_,

_Correspond._ vol. i. p. 122) says that his Dijon Discourse 'fit

une espèce de révolution à Paris.' The circulation of his works

was unprecedented; and when _La Nouvelle Héloïse_ appeared, 'les

libraires ne pouvaient suffire aux demandes de toutes les

classes. On louait l'ouvrage à tant par jour, ou par heure. Quand

il parut, on exigeait douze sous par volume, en n'accordant que

soixante minutes pour le lire.' _Musset Pathay_, _Vie de

Rousseau_, vol. ii. p. 361. For further evidence of the effect

produced by his works, see _Lerminier_, _Philos. du Droit_, vol.

ii. p. 251; _Mém. de Roland_, vol. i. p. 196, vol. ii. pp. 337,

359; _Mém. de Genlis_, vol. v. p. 193, vol. vi. p. 14; _Alison's

Europe_, vol. i. p. 170, vol. iii. p. 369, vol. iv. p. 376; _Mém.

de Morellet_, vol. i. p. 116; _Longchamp_, _Mém. sur Voltaire_,

vol. ii. p. 50; _Life of Romilly_, vol. i. p. 267; _Mem. of

Mallet du Pan_, vol. i. p. 127; _Burke's Works_, vol. i. p. 482;

_Cassagnac_, _Causes de la Rév._ vol. iii. p. 549; _Lamartine_,

_Hist. des Girondins_, vol. ii. p. 38, vol. iv. p. 93, vol. viii.

p. 125; _Wahrheit und Dichtung_, in _Göthe's Werke_, Stuttgart,

1837, vol. ii. part ii. pp. 83, 104; _Grimm_, _Correspond. Lit._

vol. xii. p. 222; _De Staël_, _Consid. sur la Rév._ vol. ii. p.

371.

The formation of a new epoch in France, about the year 1750, may be

further illustrated by three circumstances of considerable interest, all

pointing in the same direction. The first circumstance is, that not a

single great French writer attacked the political institutions of the

country before the middle of the century; while, after that period, the

attacks of the ablest men were incessant. The second circumstance is,

that the only eminent Frenchmen who continued to assail the clergy, and

yet refused to interfere in politics, were those who, like Voltaire,

had already reached an advanced age, and had, therefore, drawn their

ideas from the preceding generation, in which the church had been the

sole object of hostility. The third circumstance, which is even more

striking than the other two, is, that almost at the same moment there

was seen a change in the policy of the government; since, singularly

enough, the ministers of the crown displayed for the first time an open

enmity against the church, just as the intellect of the country was

preparing for its decisive onslaught on the government itself. Of these

three propositions, the first two will probably be admitted by every

student of French literature: at all events, if they are false, they are

so exact and peremptory, that it will be easy to refute them by giving

examples to the contrary. But the third proposition, being more general,

is less susceptible of a negative, and will therefore require the

support of that special evidence which I will now adduce.

The great French writers having by the middle of the eighteenth century

succeeded in sapping the foundations of the church, it was natural that

the government should step in and plunder an establishment which the

course of events had weakened. This, which took place in France under

Louis XV., was similar to what occurred in England under Henry VIII.;

for in both cases a remarkable intellectual movement, directed against

the clergy, preceded and facilitated the attacks made on them by the

crown. It was in 1749 that the French government took the first decisive

step against the church. And what proves the hitherto backward state of

the country in such matters is, that this consisted of an edict against

mortmain, a simple contrivance for weakening the ecclesiastical power,

which we in England had adopted long before. Machault, who had recently

been raised to the office of controller-general, has the glory of being

the originator of this new policy. In August 1749,[965] he issued that

celebrated edict which forbade the formation of any religious

establishment without the consent of the crown, duly expressed in

letters-patent, and registered in parliament; effective precautions,

which, says the great historian of France, show that Machault

'considered not only the increase, but even the existence of these

ecclesiastical properties, as a mischief to the kingdom.'[966]

[965] Sismondi (xxix. p. 20), Lacretelle (_XVIII^e Siècle_, vol. ii. p.

110), and Tocqueville (_Règne de Louis XV_, vol. ii. p. 103),

give the date 1749; so that 1747, in _Biog. Univ._ vol. xxvi.

p. 46, is apparently a misprint.

[966] 'Laissant voir dans toute cette loi, qui est assez longue, qu'il

regardoit non-seulement l'accroissement, mais l'existence de ces

propriétés ecclésiastiques, comme un mal pour le royaume.'

_Sismondi_, _Hist. des Franç._ vol. xxix. p. 21. This, I suppose,

is the edict mentioned by Turgot, who wished to push the

principle still further. _[OE]uvres de Turgot_, vol. iii. pp.

254, 255; a bold and striking passage.

This was an extraordinary step on the part of the French government; but

what followed showed that it was only the beginning of a much larger

design.[967] Machault, so far from being discountenanced, was, the year

after he had issued this edict, intrusted with the seals in addition to

the controllership;[968] for, as Lacretelle observes, the court 'thought

the time had now come to tax the property of the clergy.'[969] During

the forty years which elapsed between this period and the beginning of

the Revolution, the same anti-ecclesiastical policy prevailed. Among the

successors of Machault, the only three of much ability were Choiseul,

Necker, and Turgot, all of whom were strenuous opponents of that

spiritual body, which no minister would have assailed in the preceding

generation. Not only these eminent statesmen, but even such inferior men

as Calonne, Malesherbes, and Terray, looked on it as a stroke of policy

to attack privileges which superstition had consecrated, and which the

clergy had hitherto reserved, partly to extend their own influence, and

partly to minister to those luxurious and profligate habits, which in

the eighteenth century were a scandal to the ecclesiastical order.

[967] Mably mentions the excitement caused by this proceeding of

Machault, _Observations sur l'Histoire de France_, vol. ii. p.

415: 'On attaqua alors, dans plusieurs écrits, les immunités du

clergé.' On the dislike felt by the clergy against the minister,

see _Ségur_, _Souvenirs_, vol. i. p. 35; _Soulavie_, _Règne de

Louis XVI_, vol. i. pp. 283, 310, vol. ii. p. 146.

[968] In 1750, 'Machault obtint les sceaux en conservant le

contrôle-général.' _Biog. Univ._ vol. xxvi. p. 46.

[969] 'Croyait surtout que le temps était venu d'imposer les biens du

clergé.' _Lacretelle_, _XVIII^e Siècle_, vol. ii. p. 107. Nearly

the same words are used in _Biog. Univ._ vol. xxvi. p. 46.

While these measures were being adopted against the clergy, another

important step was taken in precisely the same direction. Now it was

that the government began to favour that great doctrine of religious

liberty, the mere defence of which it had hitherto punished as a

dangerous speculation. The connexion between the attacks on the clergy

and the subsequent progress of toleration, may be illustrated, not only

by the rapidity with which one event succeeded the other, but also by

the fact, that both of them emanated from the same quarter. Machault,

who was the author of the edict of mortmain, was also the first minister

who showed a wish to protect the Protestants against the persecutions of

the Catholic priesthood.[970] In this he only partly succeeded; but the

impetus thus given soon became irresistible. In 1760, that is only nine

years later, there was seen a marked change in the administration of the

laws; and the edicts against heresy, though not yet repealed, were

enforced with unprecedented mildness.[971] The movement quickly spread

from the capital to the remoter parts of the kingdom; and we are assured

that, after the year 1762, the reaction was felt even in those

provinces, which, from their backward condition, had always been most

remarkable for religious bigotry.[972] At the same time, as we shall

presently see, a great schism arose in the church itself, which

lessened the power of the clergy, by dividing them into two hostile

parties. Of these factions, one made common cause with the state, still

further aiding the overthrow of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Indeed,

the dissensions became so violent, that the last great blow dealt to

spiritual ascendency by the government of Louis XVI. proceeded not from

the hands of a layman, but from one of the leaders of the church; a man

who, from his standing, would, under ordinary circumstances, have

protected the interests which he now eagerly attacked. In 1787, only two

years before the Revolution, Brienne, archbishop of Toulouse,[973] who

was then minister, laid before the parliament of Paris a royal edict, by

which the discouragement hitherto thrown upon heresy was suddenly

removed. By this law, the Protestants were invested with all those civil

rights which the Catholic clergy had long held out as the reward of

adherence to their own opinions.[974] It was, therefore, natural that

the more orthodox party should condemn, as an impious innovation,[975] a

measure which, by placing the two sects, in some degree, on the same

footing, seemed to sanction the progress of error; and which certainly

deprived the French church of one of the chief attractions by which men

had hitherto been induced to join her communion. Now, however, all these

considerations were set at nought. Such was the prevailing temper, that

the parliament, though then in a mood very refractory to the royal

authority, did not hesitate to register the edict of the king; and this

great measure became law; the dominant party being astonished, we are

told, how any doubt could be entertained as to the wisdom of the

principles on which it was based.[976]

[970] On which account, he still further provoked the indignation of the

Catholic clergy. See _Felice_, _Hist. of the Protest. of France_,

pp. 401, 402; a letter written in 1751.

[971] 'The approach of the year 1760 witnessed a sensible relaxation of

persecution.... The clergy perceived this with dismay; and, in

their general assembly of 1760, they addressed urgent

remonstrances to the king against this remission of the laws.'

_Felice_, _Protest. of France_, p. 422. Comp. an interesting

letter from Nismes in 1776, in _Thicknesse's Journey through

France_, London, 1777, vol. i. p. 66.

[972] Sismondi says of 1762, 'Dès lors, la réaction de l'opinion

publique contre l'intolérance pénétra jusque dans les provinces

les plus fanatiques.' _Hist. des Franç._ vol. xxix. p. 296. See

also a letter to Damilaville, dated 6th of May, 1765, in _Lettres

inédites de Voltaire_, vol. i. p. 412; and two other letters in

_[OE]uvres de Voltaire_, vol. lxiv. p. 225, vol. lxvi. p. 417.

[973] Of whom Hume, several years before, had formed a very high

opinion. See _Burton's Life of Hume_, vol. ii. p. 497; a too

favourable judgment, which should be contrasted with the opposite

exaggerations, in _Mém. de Genlis_, vol. ix. pp. 360-363, and

_Barruel_, _Hist. du Jacobinisme_, vol. i. pp. 87, 199.

[974] _Lavallée_, _Hist. des Franç._ iii. 516; _Biog. Univ._ xxiv.

p. 656.

[975] _Georgel_, _Mémoires_, vol. ii. pp. 293, 294; a violent outbreak

against 'l'irréligieux édit ... qui autorise tous les cultes.'

[976] 'Le parlement de Paris discutait l'édit sur les protestans. Vingt

ans plus tôt, combien une telle résolution n'eût-elle pas agité

et divisé les esprits? En 1787, on ne s'étonnait que d'une chose:

c'était qu'il pût y avoir une discussion sur des principes

évidens.' _Lacretelle_, _XVIII^e Siècle_, vol. iii. pp. 342, 343.

In 1776, Malesherbes, who was then minister, wished to secure

nearly the same privileges for the Protestants, but was prevented

from doing so. _Dutens_, _Mémoires_, vol. ii. pp. 56-58. Dutens

was himself concerned in the negotiation.

These were omens of the coming storm; signs of the time, which those who

run may read. Nor are there wanting other marks, by which the true

complexion of that age may be clearly seen. In addition to what has been

just related, the government, soon after the middle of the eighteenth

century, inflicted a direct and fatal injury upon the spiritual

authority. This consisted in the expulsion of the Jesuits; which is an

event, important not only for its ultimate effects, but also as an

evidence of the feelings of men, and of what could be peaceably

accomplished by the government of him who was called 'the most Christian

king.'[977]

[977] Henry II. used to refer to this title, by way of justifying his

persecution of the Protestants (_Ranke's Civil Wars in France_,

vol. i. p. 241); and great account was made of it by that

exemplary prince, Louis XV. _Soulavie_, _Règne de Louis XVI_,

vol. i. p. 155. The French antiquaries trace it back to Pepin,

the father of Charlemagne. _Barrington's Observations on the

Statutes_, p. 168.

The Jesuits, for at least fifty years after their institution, rendered

immense services to civilization, partly by tempering with a secular

element the more superstitious views of their great predecessors, the

Dominicans and Franciscans, and partly by organizing a system of

education far superior to any yet seen in Europe. In no university could

there be found a scheme of instruction so comprehensive as theirs; and

certainly no where was displayed such skill in the management of youth,

or such insight into the general operations of the human mind. It must,

in justice, be added, that this illustrious society, notwithstanding

its eager, and often unprincipled, ambition, was, during a considerable

period, the steady friend of science, as well as of literature; and that

it allowed to its members a freedom and a boldness of speculation which

had never been permitted by any other monastic order.

As, however, civilization advanced, the Jesuits, like every spiritual

hierarchy the world has yet seen, began to lose ground; and this not so

much from their own decay, as from a change in the spirit of those who

surrounded them. An institution admirably adapted to an early form of

society, was ill suited to the same society in its maturer state. In the

sixteenth century, the Jesuits were before their age; in the eighteenth

century, they were behind it. In the sixteenth century, they were the

great missionaries of knowledge; because they believed that, by its aid,

they could subjugate the consciences of men. But, in the eighteenth

century, their materials were more refractory; they had to deal with a

perverse and stiff-necked generation; they saw in every country the

ecclesiastical authority rapidly declining; and they clearly perceived

that their only chance of retaining their old dominion was, by checking

that knowledge, the progress of which they had formerly done much to

accelerate.[978]

[978] The Prince de Montbarey, who was educated by the Jesuits about

1740, says, that, in their schools, the greatest attention was

paid to pupils intended for the church; while the abilities of

those destined for secular professions were neglected. See this

statement, which, coming from such a quarter, is very remarkable,

in _Mémoires de Montbarey_, vol. i. pp. 12, 13. Montbarey, so far

from being prejudiced against the Jesuits, ascribes the

Revolution to their overthrow. _Ibid._ vol. iii. p. 94. For other

evidence of the exclusive and unsecular character of their

education in the eighteenth century, see _Schlosser's Eighteenth

Century_, vol. iv. pp. 29, 30, 245.

Under these circumstances, the statesmen of France, almost immediately

after the middle of the eighteenth century, determined to ruin an order

which had long ruled the world, and which was still the greatest bulwark

of the church. In this design they were aided by a curious movement

which had taken place in the church itself, and which, being connected

with views of much wider import, deserves the attention even of those

for whom theological controversies have no interest.

Among the many points on which metaphysicians have wasted their

strength, that of free-will has provoked the hottest disputes. And what

has increased the acerbity of their language, is, that this, which is

eminently a metaphysical question, has been taken up by theologians, who

have treated it with that warmth for which they are remarkable.[979]

From the time of Pelagius, if not earlier,[980] Christianity has been

divided into two great sects, which, though in some respects uniting by

insensible shades, have always preserved the broad features of their

original difference. By one sect, the freedom of the will is virtually,

and often expressly, denied; for it is asserted, not only that we cannot

of our own will effect anything meritorious, but that whatever good we

may do will be useless, since the Deity has predestined some men to

perdition, others to salvation. By the other sect, the freedom of the

will is as strongly upheld; good works are declared essential to

salvation; and the opposite party is accused of exaggerating that state

of grace of which faith is a necessary accompaniment.[981]

[979] See some singular observations in Parr's first sermon on faith and

morals (_Parr's Works_, vol. vi. p. 598), where we are told that,

in the management of the feud between Calvinists and Arminians,

'the steadiness of defence should be proportionate to the

impetuosity of assault;' unnecessary advice, so far as his own

profession is concerned. However, the Mohammedan theologians are

said to have been even keener than the Christians on the subject.

See _Troyer's Discourse on the Dabistan_, vol. i. p. cxxxv.; an

important work on the Asiatic religions.

[980] Neander (_Hist. of the Church_, vol. iv. p. 105) finds the germ of

the Pelagian controversy in the dispute between Athanasius and

Apollinaris. Compare, respecting its origin, a note in _Milman's

Hist. of Christianity_, 1840, vol. iii. pp. 270, 271.

[981] No writer I have met with, has stated so fairly and clearly the

theological boundaries of these doctrines, as Göthe. _Wahrheit

und Dichtung_, in _Werke_, vol. ii. part ii. p. 200, Stuttgart,

1837.

These opposite principles, when pushed to their logical consequences,

must lead the first sect into antinomianism,[982] and the second sect

into the doctrine of supererogatory works.[983] But since on such

subjects, men feel far more than they reason, it usually happens that

they prefer following some common and accredited standard, or appealing

to some ancient name:[984] and they, therefore, generally class

themselves on the one side under Augustin, Calvin, and Jansenius; on the

other side under Pelagius, Arminius, and Molina.

[982] Compare _Butler's Mem. of the Catholics_, vol. iii. p. 224;

_Copleston on Necessity and Predestination_, pp. 25, 26;

_Mosheim's Eccles. History_, vol. ii. p. 254.

[983] Hence the theory of indulgences, constructed by the Church of Rome

with perfect consistency, and against which most of the

Protestant arguments are illogical.

[984] This seems to be the natural tendency, and has been observed by

Neander in his instructive account of the Gnostics, _History of

the Church_, vol. ii. p. 121: 'The custom with such sects to

attach themselves to some celebrated name or other of antiquity.'

Now, it is an interesting fact, that the doctrines which in England are

called Calvinistic, have been always connected with a democratic spirit;

while those of Arminianism have found most favour among the aristocratic

or protective party. In the republics of Switzerland, of North America,

and of Holland, Calvinism was always the popular creed.[985] On the

other hand, in those evil days, immediately after the death of

Elizabeth, when our liberties were in imminent peril; when the Church of

England, aided by the crown, attempted to subjugate the consciences of

men; and when the monstrous claim of the divine right of episcopacy was

first put forward;[986]--then it was that Arminianism became the

cherished doctrine of the ablest and most ambitious of the

ecclesiastical party.[987] And in that sharp retribution which followed,

the Puritans and Independents, by whom the punishment was inflicted,

were, with scarcely an exception, Calvinists:[988] nor should we forget,

that the first open movement against Charles proceeded from Scotland,

where the principles of Calvin had long been in the ascendant.

[985] The Dutch church was the first which adopted, as an article of

faith, the doctrine of election held at Geneva. _Mosheim's

Eccles. History_, vol. ii. p. 112. See also, on this doctrine in

the Netherlands, _Sinclair's Corresp._ vol. ii. p. 199;

_Coventry's Speech in_ 1672, in _Parl. Hist._ vol. iv. p. 537;

and _Stäudlin_, _Gesch. der theolog. Wissenschaften_, vol. i. p.

262: 'In den Niederlanden wurde der Calvinische Lehrbegriff

zuerst in eine scholastische Form gebracht.'

As to the Calvinism of North America, compare _Bancroft's

American Revolution_, vol. i. pp. 165, 173, 174, vol. ii. pp.

329, 363, vol. iii. p. 213; _Lyell's Second Visit to the United

States_, 1849, vol. i. p. 51; and _Combe's Notes on the United

States_, vol. i. pp. 35, 99, 223, vol. iii. pp. 88, 118, 210,

226.

[986] It is sometimes said that this was advocated by Bancroft as early

as 1588; but this assertion appears to be erroneous, and Mr.

Hallam can find no instance before the reign of James I. _Const.

Hist._ vol. i. p. 390. The dogma, though new in the Church of

England, was of great antiquity. See, on its origin among the

early Christians, _Klimrath_, _Hist. du Droit_, vol. i. p. 253.

[987] The spread of Arminianism was frequently noticed in Parliament

during the reign of Charles I. _Parl. Hist._ vol. ii. pp. 444,

452, 455, 470, 484, 487, 491, 660, 947, 1368. On the decline of

Calvinism at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge early in

the seventeenth century, see a curious letter from Beale, in

_Boyle's Works_, vol. v. p. 483; and on this movement in the

church after Elizabeth, compare _Yonge's Diary_, p. 93, edit.

Camden Soc. 1848; _Orme's Life of Owen_, p. 32; _Harris's Lives

of the Stuarts_, vol. i. pp. 154-156, vol. ii. pp. 208, 213, 214;

_Hutchinson's Mem._ pp. 66, 77; _Hallam's Const. Hist._ vol. i.

p. 466; _Des Maizeaux's Life of Chillingworth_, p. 112.

[988] Respecting the Calvinism of the opponents of the king, see

_Clarendon's Rebellion_, pp. 36, 37; _Bulstrode's Memoirs_, pp.

8, 9; _Burton's Diary_, vol. iii. p. 206; _Carlyle's Cromwell_,

vol. i. p. 68; and on its influence in the House of Commons in

1628, _Carwithen's Hist. of the Church of England_, vol. ii.

p. 64.

This different tendency of these two creeds is so clearly marked, that

an inquiry into its causes becomes a necessary part of general history,

and as we shall presently see, is intimately connected with the history

of the French Revolution.

The first circumstance by which we must be struck is, that Calvinism is

a doctrine for the poor, and Arminianism for the rich. A creed which

insists upon the necessity of faith, must be less costly than one which

insists upon the necessity of works. In the former case, the sinner

seeks salvation by the strength of his belief; in the latter case, he

seeks it by the fullness of his contributions. And as those

contributions, wherever the clergy have much power, always flow in the

same direction, we find that in countries which favour the Arminian

doctrine of works, the priests are better paid, and the churches more

richly ornamented, than they are where Calvinism has the upper hand.

Indeed it is evident to the most vulgar calculation, that a religion

which concentrates our charity upon ourselves, is less expensive than

one which directs our charity to others.

This is the first great practical divergence of the two creeds: a

divergence which may be verified by any one who is acquainted with the

histories of different Christian nations, or who has even travelled in

countries where the different tenets are professed. It is also

observable, that the Church of Rome, whose worship is addressed mainly

to the senses, and who delights in splendid cathedrals and pompous

ceremonies, has always displayed against the Calvinists an animosity far

greater than she has done against any other Protestant sect.[989]

[989] M Heber (_Life of Jeremy Taylor_, p. cxx.) says, that Calvinism is

'a system of all others the least attractive to the feelings of a

Roman Catholic.' Philip II., the great Catholic champion,

especially hated the Calvinists, and in one of his edicts called

their sect 'détestable,' _De Thou_, _Hist._ vol. x. p. 705:

compare vol. xi. p. 458. To give an earlier instance; when the

Roman inquisition was revived in 1542, it was ordered that

heretics, and in particular Calvinists, should not be tolerated:

'besonders Calvinisten.' _Ranke_, _Die Päpste_, vol. i. p. 211.

Out of these circumstances, inevitably arose the aristocratic tendency

of Arminianism, and the democratic tendency of Calvinism. The people

love pomp and pageantry as much as the nobles do, but they do not love

to pay for them. Their untutored minds are easily captivated by the

array of a numerous priesthood, and by the gorgeousness of a

well-appointed temple. Still, they know full well that these things

absorb a large part of that wealth which would otherwise flow into their

own cottages. On the other hand, the aristocracy, by their standing,

their habits, and the traditions of their education, naturally contract

a taste for expense, which makes them unite splendour with religion, and

connect pomp with piety. Besides this, they have an intuitive and

well-founded belief that their own interests are associated with the

interests of the priesthood, and that whatever weakens the one will

hasten the downfall of the other. Hence it is, that every Christian

democracy has simplified its external worship; every Christian

aristocracy has embellished it. By a parity of reasoning, the more any

society tends to equality, the more likely it is that its theological

opinions will be Calvinistic; while the more a society tends towards

inequality, the greater the probability of those opinions being

Arminian.

It would be easy to push this contrast still further, and to show that

Calvinism is more favourable to the sciences, Arminianism to the

arts;[990] and that, on the same principle, the first is better suited

to thinkers, the other to scholars.[991] But without pretending to trace

the whole of this divergence, it is very important to observe, that the

professors of the former religion are more likely to acquire habits of

independent thinking than those of the latter. And this on two distinct

grounds. In the first place, even the most ordinary of the Calvinistic

party are, by the very terms of their creed, led, in religious matters,

to fix their attention on their own minds rather than on the minds of

others. They, therefore, as a body, are intellectually more narrow than

their opponents, but less servile; their views, though generalized from

a smaller field, are more independent; they are less attached to

antiquity, and more heedless of those traditions to which the Arminian

scholars attach great importance. In the second place, those who

associate metaphysics with their religion are led by Calvinism into the

doctrine of necessity;[992] a theory which, though often misunderstood,

is pregnant with great truths, and is better calculated than any other

system to develop the intellect, because it involves that clear

conception of law, the attainment of which is the highest point the

human understanding can reach.

[990] By way of illustrating this, I may mention, that an intelligent

observer, who travelled all through Germany, remarked, in 1780,

that the Calvinists, though richer than their opponents, had less

taste for the arts. _Riesbeck's Travels through Germany_, London,

1787, vol. ii. p. 240. An interesting passage; in which, however,

the author has shown himself unable to generalize the facts which

he indicates.

[991] The Arminians have had among them many men of great learning,

particularly of patristic learning; but the most profound

thinkers have been on the other side, as in the instances of

Augustin, Pascal, and Jonathan Edwards. To these Calvinistic

metaphysicians the Arminian party can oppose no one of equal

ability; and it is remarkable, that the Jesuits, by far the most

zealous Arminians in the Romish Church, have always been

celebrated for their erudition, but have paid so little attention

to the study of the mind, that, as Sir James Mackintosh says

(_Dissert. on Ethical Philos._ p. 185), Buffier is 'the only

Jesuit whose name has a place in the history of abstract

philosophy.' And it is interesting to observe, that this

superiority of thought on the part of the Calvinists, accompanied

by an inferiority of learning, existed from the beginning; for

Neander (_History of the Church_, vol. iv. p. 299) remarks, that

Pelagius 'was not possessed of the profound speculative spirit

which we find in Augustin,' but that 'in learning he was

Augustin's superior.'

[992] 'A philosophical necessity, grounded on the idea of God's

foreknowledge, has been supported by theologians of the

Calvinistic school, more or less rigidly, throughout the whole of

the present century.' _Morell's Speculative Philosophy of

Europe_, 1846, vol. i. p. 366. Indeed, this tendency is so

natural, that we find the doctrine of necessity, or something

extremely like it, laid down by Augustin. See the interesting

extracts in _Neander's History of the Church_, vol. vi. pp. 424,

425; where, however, a loophole is left to let in the idea of

interference, or at all events of superintendence.

These considerations will enable the reader to see the immense

importance of that revival of Jansenism, which took place in the French

church during the eighteenth century. For, Jansenism being essentially

Calvinistic,[993] those tendencies appeared in France by which Calvinism

is marked. There appeared the inquisitive, democratic, and insubordinate

spirit, which has always accompanied that creed. A further confirmation

of the truth of the principles just laid down is, that Jansenism

originated with a native of the Dutch Republic;[994] that it was

introduced into France during the glimpse of freedom which preceded the

power of Louis XIV.;[995] that it was forcibly repressed in his

arbitrary reign;[996] and that before the middle of the eighteenth

century, it again arose, as the natural product of a state of society by

which the French Revolution was brought about.

[993] 'The five principal tenets of Jansenism, which amount in fact to

the doctrine of Calvin.' _Palmer on the Church_, vol. i. p. 320;

and see the remarks of Mackintosh in his _Memoirs_, vol. i. p.

411. According to the Jesuits, 'Paulus genuit Augustinum,

Augustinus Calvinum, Calvinus Jansenium, Jansenius Sancryanum,

Sancryanus Arnaldum et fratres ejus.' _Des Réaux_,

_Historiettes_, vol. iv. pp. 71, 72. Compare _Huetius de Rebus ad

eum pertinentibus_, p. 64: 'Jansenium dogmata sua ex Calvinianis

fontibus derivasse.'

[994] Jansenius was born in a village near Leerdam, and was educated, if

I mistake not, in Utrecht.

[995] The introduction of Jansenism into France is superficially related

by Duvernet (_Hist. de la Sorbonne_, vol. ii. pp. 170-175); but

the reader will find a contemporary and highly characteristic

account in _Mém. de Motteville_, vol. ii. pp. 224-227. The

connexion between it and the spirit of insubordination was

remarked at the time; and Des Réaux, who wrote in the middle of

the seventeenth century, mentions an opinion that the Fronde

'étoit venue du Jansénisme.' _Historiettes_, vol. iv. p. 72. Omer

Talon too says that, in 1648, 'il se trouvoit que tous ceux qui

étoient de cette opinion n'aimoient pas le gouvernement présent

de l'état,' _Mém. d'Omer Talon_, vol. ii. pp. 280, 281.

[996] Brienne, who knew Louis XIV. personally, says, 'Jansénisme,

l'horreur du roi.' _Mém. de Brienne_, vol. ii. p. 240. Compare

_Duclos_, _Mém. Secrets_, vol. i. p. 112. At the end of his reign

he promoted a bishop on the avowed ground of his opposition to

the Jansenists; this was in 1713. _Lettres inédites de

Maintenon_, vol. ii. pp. 396, 406; and see further vol. i. pp.

220, 222.

The connexion between the revival of Jansenism and the destruction of

the Jesuits, is obvious. After the death of Louis XIV., the Jansenists

rapidly gained ground, even in the Sorbonne;[997] and by the middle of

the eighteenth century, they had organized a powerful party in the

French parliament.[998] About the same period, their influence began to

show itself in the executive government, and among the officers of the

crown. Machault, who held the important post of controller-general, was

known to favour their opinions;[999] and a few years after his

retirement, Choiseul was called to the head of affairs; a man of

considerable ability, by whom they were openly protected.[1000] Their

views were likewise supported by Laverdy, controller-general in 1764,

and by Terray, controller of finances in 1769.[1001] The

procureur-general, Gilbert des Voisins, was a Jansenist;[1002] so also

was one of his successors, Chauvelin;[1003] and so was the

advocate-general Pelletier de Saint-Fargeau;[1004] and so too was Camus,

the well-known advocate of the clergy.[1005] Turgot, the greatest

statesman of the age, is said to have embraced the same opinions;[1006]

while Necker, who on two different occasions possessed almost supreme

power, was notoriously a rigid Calvinist. To this may be added, that not

only Necker, but also Rousseau, to whom a large share in causing the

Revolution is justly ascribed, were born in Geneva, and drew their

earliest ideas from that great nursery of the Calvinistic theology.

[997] 'La Sorbonne, moliniste sous Louis XIV, fut janséniste sous le

régent, et toujours divisée.' _Duvernet_, _Hist. de la Sorbonne_,

vol. ii. p. 225.

[998] On the strength of the Jansenists in the parliament of Paris, see

_Tocqueville_, _Règne de Louis XV_, vol. i. p. 352, vol. ii. p.

176; _Flassan_, _Diplomatie_, vol. vi. p. 486; _Mém. de Georgel_,

vol. ii. p. 262; _Mém. de Bouillé_, vol. i. p. 67; _Palmer's

Treatise on the Church_, vol. i. pp. 327, 328.

[999] _Lavallée_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. iii. p. 439.

[1000] _Soulavie_, _Règne de Louis XVI_, vol. i. pp. 31, 145.

[1001] _Tocqueville_, _Règne de Louis XV_, vol. ii. p. 385; _[OE]uvres

de Voltaire_, vol. liv. p. 275; _Mém. de Georgel_, vol. i.

pp. 49-51.

[1002] _Duvernet_, _Vie de Voltaire_, p. 90.

[1003] _Lacretelle_, _XVIII^e Siècle_, vol. ii. p. 119; _Lavallée_,

vol. iii. p. 477.

[1004] _Mém. de Georgel_, vol. i. p. 57.

[1005] _La Fayette_, _Mém._ vol. ii. p. 53; _Dumont_, _Souvenirs_,

p. 154; _Georgel_, vol. ii. p. 353, vol. iii. p. 10.

[1006] _Soulavie_, _Règne de Louis XVI_, vol. iii. p. 137.

In such a state of things as this, it was impossible that a body like

the Jesuits should hold their ground. They were the last defenders of

authority and tradition, and it was natural that they should fall in an

age when statesmen were sceptics, and theologians were Calvinists. Even

the people had already marked them for destruction; and when Damiens, in

1757, attempted to assassinate the king, it was generally believed that

they were the instigators of the act.[1007] This we now know to be

false; but the existence of such a rumour is evidence of the state of

the popular mind. At all events, the doom of the Jesuits was fixed. In

April 1761, parliament ordered their constitutions to be laid before

them.[1008] In August, they were forbidden to receive novices, their

colleges were closed, and a number of their most celebrated works were

publicly burned by the common hangman.[1009] Finally, in 1762, another

edict appeared, by which the Jesuits were condemned without even being

heard in their own defence;[1010] their property was directed to be

sold, and their order secularized; they were declared 'unfit to be

admitted into a well-governed country,' and their institute and society

were formally abolished.[1011]

[1007] 'The Jesuits are charged by the vulgar as promoters of that

attempt.' Letter from Stanley, written in 1761, in _Chatham

Correspond._ vol. ii. p. 127. Compare _Campan_, _Mém. de Marie

Antoinette_, vol. iii. pp. 19, 21; _Sismondi_, _Hist. des

Franç._ vol. xxix. pp. 111, 227.

[1008] _Lavallée_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. iii. p. 476.

[1009] _Flassan_, _Diplomatie Franç._ vol. vi. p. 491.

[1010] 'Sans que les accusés eussent été entendus.' _Lavallée_, vol.

iii. p. 477. 'Pas un seul n'a été entendu dans leur cause.'

_Barruel sur l'Hist. du Jacobinisme_, vol. ii. p. 264.

[1011] _Lavallée_, iii. p. 477; _Flassan_, vi. pp. 504, 505; _Sismondi_,

xxix. p. 234; and the letters written by Diderot, who, though he

was in Paris at the time, gives rather an incomplete account,

_Mém. de Diderot_, vol. ii. pp. 127, 130-132.

Such was the way in which this great society, long the terror of the

world, fell before the pressure of public opinion. What makes its fall

the more remarkable, is, that the pretext which was alleged to justify

the examination of its constitutions, was one so slight, that no former

government would have listened to it for a single moment. This immense

spiritual corporation was actually tried by a temporal court for ill

faith in a mercantile transaction, and for refusing to pay a sum of

money said to be due![1012] The most important body in the Catholic

church, the spiritual leaders of France, the educators of her youth, and

the confessors of her kings, were brought to the bar, and sued in their

collective capacity, for the fraudulent repudiation of a common

debt![1013] So marked was the predisposition of affairs, that it was

not found necessary to employ for the destruction of the Jesuits any of

those arts by which the popular mind is commonly inflamed. The charge

upon which they were sentenced, was not that they had plotted against

the state; nor that they had corrupted the public morals; nor that they

wished to subvert religion. These were the accusations which were

brought in the seventeenth century, and which suited the genius of that

age. But in the eighteenth century, all that was required was some

trifling accident, that might serve as a pretence to justify what the

nation had already determined. To ascribe, therefore, this great event

to the bankruptcy of a trader, or the intrigues of a mistress,[1014] is

to confuse the cause of an act with the pretext under which the act is

committed. In the eyes of the men of the eighteenth century, the real

crime of the Jesuits was, that they belonged to the past rather than to

the present, and that by defending the abuses of ancient establishments,

they obstructed the progress of mankind. They stood in the way of the

age, and the age swept them from its path. This was the real cause of

their abolition: a cause not likely to be perceived by those writers,

who, under the guise of historians, are only collectors of the prattle

and gossip of courts; and who believe that the destinies of great

nations can be settled in the ante-chambers of ministers, and in the

councils of kings.

[1012] _Flassan_, _Hist. de la Diplomatie_, vol. vi. pp. 486-488.

[1013] 'Enfin ils furent mis en cause, et le parlement de Paris eut

l'étonnement et la joie de voir les jésuites amenés devant lui

comme de vils banqueroutiers.' _Lacretelle_, _XVIII^e Siècle_,

vol. ii. p. 252. 'Condemned in France as fraudulent traders.'

_Schlosser's Eighteenth Century_, vol. iv. p. 451.

[1014] Several writers attribute the destruction of the Jesuits to the

exertions of Madame de Pompadour!

After the fall of the Jesuits, there seemed to be nothing remaining

which could save the French church from immediate destruction.[1015] The

old theological spirit had been for some time declining, and the clergy

were suffering from their own decay even more than from the attacks made

upon them. The advance of knowledge was producing in France the same

results as those which I have pointed out in England; and the

increasing attractions of science drew off many illustrious men, who in

a preceding age would have been active members of the spiritual

profession. That splendid eloquence, for which the French clergy had

been remarkable, was now dying away, and there were no longer heard the

voices of those great orators, at whose bidding the temples had formerly

been filled.[1016] Massillon was the last of that celebrated race who

had so enthralled the mind, and the magic of whose fascination it is

even now hard to withstand. He died in 1742; and after him the French

clergy possessed no eminent men of any kind, neither thinkers, nor

orators, nor writers.[1017] Nor did there seem the least possibility of

their recovering their lost position. While society was advancing they

were receding. All the sources of their power were dried up. They had no

active leaders; they had lost the confidence of government; they had

forfeited the respect of the people; they had become a mark for the

gibes of the age.[1018]

[1015] Choiseul is reported to have said of the Jesuits: 'leur éducation

détruite, tous les autres corps religieux tomberont

d'eux-mêmes.' _Barruel_, _Hist. du Jacobinisme_, vol. i. p. 63.

[1016] In 1771, Horace Walpole writes from Paris that the churches and

convents were become so empty, as to 'appear like abandoned

theatres destined to destruction;' and this he contrasts with

his former experience of a different state of things. _Walpole's

Letters_, vol. v. p. 310, edit. 1840.

[1017] 'So low had the talents of the once illustrious church of France

fallen, that in the latter part of the eighteenth century, when

Christianity itself was assailed, not one champion of note

appeared in its ranks; and when the convocation of the clergy,

in 1770, published their famous anathema against the dangers of

unbelief, and offered rewards for the best essays in defence of

the Christian faith, the productions called forth were so

despicable that they sensibly injured the cause of religion.'

_Alison's Hist. of Europe_, vol. i. pp. 180, 181.

[1018] In 1766, the Rev. William Cole writes to Alban Butler: 'I

travelled to Paris through Lille and Cambray in their public

voitures, and was greatly scandalized and amazed at the open and

unreserved disrespect, both of the trading and military people,

for their clergy and religious establishment. When I got to

Paris, it was much worse.' _Ellis's Original Letters_, second

series, vol. iv. p. 485. See also _Walpole's Letters to Lady

Ossory_, vol. ii. p. 513, edit. 1848; and the complaint made at

Besançon in 1761, in _Lepan_, _Vie de Voltaire_, p. 113.

It does, at first sight, seem strange that, under these circumstances,

the French clergy should have been able, for nearly thirty years after

the abolition of the Jesuits, to maintain their standing, so as to

interfere with impunity in public affairs.[1019] The truth, however, is,

that this temporary reprieve of the ecclesiastical order was owing to

that movement which I have already noticed, and by virtue of which the

French intellect, during the latter half of the eighteenth century,

changed the ground of its attack, and, directing its energies against

political abuses, neglected in some degree those spiritual abuses to

which its attention had been hitherto confined. The result was, that in

France the government enforced a policy which the great thinkers had

indeed originated, but respecting which they were becoming less eager.

The most eminent Frenchmen were beginning their attacks upon the state,

and in the heat of their new warfare they slackened their opposition to

the church. But in the mean time, the seeds they had sown germinated in

the state itself. So rapid was the march of affairs, that those

anti-ecclesiastical opinions which, a few years earlier, were punished

as the paradoxes of designing men, were now taken up and put into

execution by senators and ministers. The rulers of France carried into

effect principles which had hitherto been simply a matter of theory; and

thus it happened, as is always the case, that practical statesmen only

apply and work out ideas which have long before been suggested by more

advanced thinkers.

[1019] And also to retain their immense property, which, when the

Revolution occurred, was estimated at 80,000,000_l._ English

money, bringing in a yearly revenue of 'somewhat under

75,000,000 francs.' _Alison's Europe_, vol. i. p. 183, vol. ii.

p. 20, vol. xiv. pp. 122, 123.

Hence it followed, that at no period during the eighteenth century did

the speculative classes and practical classes thoroughly combine against

the church: since, in the first half of the century, the clergy were

principally assailed by the literature, and not by the government; in

the latter half of the century, by the government, and not by the

literature. Some of the circumstances of this singular transition have

been already stated, and I hope clearly brought before the mind of the

reader. I now purpose to complete the generalization, by proving that a

corresponding change was taking place in all other branches of inquiry;

and that, while in the first period attention was chiefly directed

towards mental phenomena, it was in the second period more directed

towards physical phenomena. From this, the political movement received a

vast accession of strength. For the French intellect, shifting the scene

of its labours, diverted the thoughts of men from the internal to the

external, and concentrating attention upon their material rather than

upon their spiritual wants, turned against the encroachments of the

state an hostility formerly reserved for the encroachments of the

church. Whenever a tendency arises to prefer what comes from without to

what comes from within, and thus to aggrandize matter at the expense of

mind, there will also be a tendency to believe that an institution which

hampers our opinions is less hurtful than one which controls our acts.

Precisely in the same way, men who reject the fundamental truths of

religion, will care little for the extent to which those truths are

perverted. Men who deny the existence of the Deity and the immortality

of the soul, will take no heed of the way in which a gross and formal

worship obscures those sublime doctrines. All the idolatry, all the

ceremonials, all the pomp, all the dogmas, and all the traditions by

which religion is retarded, will give them no disquietude, because they

consider the opinions that are checked to be equally false with those

that are favoured. Why should they, to whom transcendental truths are

unknown, labour to remove the superstitions which darken the truths?

Such a generation, so far from attacking ecclesiastical usurpations,

would rather look on the clergy as convenient tools to ensnare the

ignorant and control the vulgar. Therefore it is that we rarely hear of

a sincere atheist being a zealous polemic. But if that should occur,

which a century ago occurred in France; if it should happen that men of

great energy, and actuated by the feelings I have described, were to

find themselves in the presence of a political despotism,--they would

direct against it the whole of their powers; and they would act with the

more determined vigour, because, believing that their all was at stake,

temporal happiness would be to them not only the first, but also the

sole consideration.

It is from this point of view that the progress of those atheistical

opinions, which now rose in France, becomes a matter of great though

painful interest. And the date at which they appeared, fully

corroborates what I have just said respecting the change that took place

in the middle of the eighteenth century. The first great work in which

they were openly promulgated, was the celebrated Encyclopædia, published

in 1751.[1020] Before that time such degrading opinions, though

occasionally broached, were not held by any men of ability; nor could

they in the preceding state of society have made much impression upon

the age. But during the latter half of the eighteenth century, they

affected every department of French literature. Between 1758 and 1770,

atheistical tenets rapidly gained ground;[1021] and in 1770 was

published the famous work, called the _System of Nature_; the success,

and, unhappily, the ability of which, makes its appearance an important

epoch in the history of France. Its popularity was immense;[1022] and

the views it contains are so clearly and methodically arranged, as to

have earned for it the name of the code of atheism.[1023] Five years

later, the Archbishop of Toulouse, in a formal address to the king on

behalf of the clergy, declared that atheism had now become the

prevailing opinion.[1024] This, like all similar assertions, must have

been an exaggeration; but that there was a large amount of truth in it,

is known to whoever has studied the mental habits of the generation

immediately preceding the Revolution. Among the inferior class of

writers, Damilaville, Deleyre, Maréchal, Naigeon, Toussaint, were active

supporters of that cold and gloomy dogma, which, in order to extinguish

the hope of a future life, blots out from the mind of man the glorious

instincts of his own immortality.[1025] And, strange to say, several

even of the higher intellects were unable to escape the contagion.

Atheism was openly advocated by Condorcet, by D'Alembert, by Diderot, by

Helvétius, by Lalande, by Laplace, by Mirabeau, and by Saint

Lambert.[1026] Indeed, so thoroughly did all this harmonize with the

general temper, that in society men boasted of what, in other countries,

and in other days, has been a rare and singular error, an eccentric

taint, which those affected by it were willing to conceal. In 1764 Hume

met, at the house of Baron d'Holbach, a party of the most celebrated

Frenchmen then residing in Paris. The great Scotchman, who was no doubt

aware of the prevailing opinion, took occasion to raise an argument as

to the existence of an atheist, properly so called; for his own part, he

said, he had never chanced to meet with one. 'You have been somewhat

unfortunate,' replied Holbach; 'but at the present moment you are

sitting at table with seventeen of them.'[1027]

[1020] M. Barante (_Littérature Française au XVIII^e Siècle_, p. 94)

says, 'On arriva bientôt à tout nier; déjà l'incrédulité avait

rejeté les preuves divines de la révélation, et avait abjuré les

devoirs et les souvenirs chrétiens; on vit alors l'athéisme

lever un front plus hardi, et proclamer que tout sentiment

religieux était une rêverie et un désordre de l'esprit humain.

C'est de l'époque de l'Encyclopédie que datent les écrits où

cette opinion est le plus expressément professée. Ils furent peu

imités.' This last sentence is erroneous, I am sorry to say.

[1021] 'Dans un intervalle de douze années, de 1758 à 1770, la

littérature française fut souillée par un grand nombre

d'ouvrages où l'athéisme étoit ouvertement professé.'

_Lacretelle_, _XVIII^e Siècle_, vol. ii. p. 310.

[1022] Voltaire, who wrote against it, mentions its diffusion among all

classes, and says it was read by 'des savants, des ignorants,

des femmes.' _Dict. Philos._ article _Dieu_, section iv., in

_[OE]uvres de Voltaire_, vol. xxxviii. p. 366: see also vol.

lxvii. p. 260; _Longchamp et Wagnière_, _Mém. sur Voltaire_,

vol. i. pp. 13, 334; _Lettres inédites de Voltaire_, vol. ii.

pp. 210, 216; and a letter from him in _Correspond. de

Dudeffand_, vol. ii. p. 329. Compare _Tennemann_, _Gesch. der

Philos._ vol. xi. p. 320: 'mit ungetheiltem Beifalle aufgenommen

worden und grossen Einfluss gehabt hat.'

[1023] 'Le code monstrueux d'athéisme.' _Biog. Univ._ vol. xxix. p. 88.

Morellet, who in such matters was by no means a harsh judge,

says, '_Le Système de la Nature_, surtout, est un catéchisme

d'athéisme complet.' _Mém. de Morellet_, vol. i. p. 133.

Stäudlin (_Gesch. der theolog. Wissenschaften_, vol. ii. p. 440)

calls it 'ein System des entschiedenen Atheismus:' while

Tennemann, who has given by far the best account of it I have

met with, says, 'Es machte bei seinem Erscheinen gewaltiges

Aufsehen, und ist fast immer als das Handbuch des Atheismus

betrachtet worden.' _Gesch. der Philos._ vol. xi. p. 349.

[1024] 'Le monstrueux athéisme est devenu l'opinion dominante.'

_Soulavie_, _Règne de Louis XVI_, vol. iii. p. 16: the address

of the archbishop with a deputation, 'muni des pouvoirs de

l'assemblée générale du clergé,' in September 1775.

[1025] _Biog. Univ._ vol. x. pp. 471, 669, vol. xxvii. p. 8, vol. xxx.

p. 542; _Mém. de Brissot_, vol. i. p. 305; _Tocqueville_, _Règne

de Louis XV_, vol. ii. p. 77.

[1026] _Mem. of Mallet du Pan_, vol. i. p. 50; _Soulavie_, _Règne de

Louis XVI_, vol. v. p. 127; _Barruel_, _Hist. du Jacobin._, vol.

i. pp. 104, 135, 225, vol. ii. p. 23, vol. iii. p. 200; _Life of

Romilly_, vol. i. pp. 46, 145; _Stäudlin_, _Theolog.

Wissenschaften_, vol. ii. p. 440; _Georgel_, _Mém._ vol. ii. pp.

250, 350; _Grimm_, _Correspond._ vol. xv. p. 87; _Mém. de

Morellet_, vol. i. p. 130; _Lepan_, _Vie de Voltaire_, p. 369;

_Tennemann_, _Gesch. der Philos._ vol. xi. p. 350; _Musset

Pathay_, _Vie de Rousseau_, vol. ii. pp. 177, 297; _Mém. de

Genlis_, vol. v. p. 180; _Hitchcock's Geol._ p. 263; _Mém.

d'Epinay_, vol. ii. pp. 63, 66, 76.

[1027] This was related to Romilly by Diderot. _Life of Romilly_,

vol. i. pp. 131, 132: see also _Burton's Life of Hume_, vol. ii.

pp. 220. Priestley, who visited France in 1774, says, that 'all

the philosophical persons to whom I was introduced at Paris

(were) unbelievers in Christianity, and even professed

atheists.' _Priestley's Memoirs_, vol. i. p. 74. See also a

letter by Horace Walpole, written from Paris in 1765 (_Walpole's

Letters_, edit. 1840, vol. v. p. 96): 'their avowed doctrine is

atheism.'

This, sad as it is, only forms a single aspect of that immense movement,

by which, during the latter half of the eighteenth century, the French

intellect was withdrawn from the study of the internal, and concentrated

upon that of the external world. Of this tendency, we find an

interesting instance in the celebrated work of Helvétius, unquestionably

the ablest and most influential treatise on morals which France produced

at this period. It was published in 1758;[1028] and, although it bears

the title of an essay on 'the Mind,' it does not contain a single

passage from which we could infer that the mind, in the sense in which

the word is commonly used, has any existence. In this work, which,

during fifty years, was the code of French morals, principles are laid

down which bear exactly the same relation to ethics that atheism bears

to theology. Helvétius, at the beginning of his inquiry, assumes, as an

incontestable fact, that the difference between man and other animals is

the result of a difference in their external form; and that if, for

example, our wrists, instead of ending with hands and flexible fingers,

had merely ended like a horse's foot, we should have always remained

wanderers on the face of the earth, ignorant of every art, entirely

defenceless, and having no other concern but to avoid the attacks of

wild beasts, and find the needful supply of our daily food.[1029] That

the structure of our bodies is the sole cause of our boasted

superiority, becomes evident, when we consider that our thoughts are

simply the product of two faculties, which we have in common with all

other animals; namely, the faculty of receiving impressions from

external objects, and the faculty of remembering those impressions after

they are received.[1030] From this, says Helvétius, it follows, that the

internal powers of man being the same as those of all other animals, our

sensibility and our memory would be useless, if it were not for those

external peculiarities by which we are eminently distinguished, and to

which we owe every thing that is most valuable.[1031] These positions

being laid down, it is easy to deduce all the essential principles of

moral actions. For, memory being merely one of the organs of physical

sensibility,[1032] and judgment being only a sensation,[1033] all

notions of duty and of virtue must be tested by their relation to the

senses; in other words, by the gross amount of physical enjoyment to

which they give rise. This is the true basis of moral philosophy. To

take any other view, is to allow ourselves to be deceived by

conventional expressions, which have no foundation except in the

prejudices of ignorant men. Our vices and our virtues are solely the

result of our passions; and our passions are caused by our physical

sensibility to pain and to pleasure.[1034] It was in this way that the

sense of justice first arose. To physical sensibility men owe pleasure

and pain; hence the feeling of their own interests, and hence the desire

of living together in societies. Being assembled in society, there grew

up the notion of a general interest, since, without it, society could

not hold together; and, as actions are only just or unjust in proportion

as they minister to this general interest, a measure was established, by

which justice is discriminated from injustice.[1035] With the same

inflexible spirit, and with great fullness of illustration, Helvétius

examines the origin of those other feelings which regulate human

actions. Thus, he says that both ambition and friendship are entirely

the work of physical sensibility. Men yearn after fame, on account

either of the pleasure which they expect the mere possession of it will

give, or else as the means of subsequently procuring other

pleasures.[1036] As to friendship, the only use of it is to increase our

pleasures or mitigate our pains; and it is with this object that a man

longs to hold communion with his friend.[1037] Beyond this, life has

nothing to offer. To love what is good for the sake of the goodness, is

as impossible as to love what is bad for the sake of the evil.[1038] The

mother who weeps for the loss of her child, is solely actuated by

selfishness; she mourns because a pleasure is taken from her, and

because she sees a void difficult to fill up.[1039] So it is, that the

loftiest virtues, as well as the meanest vices, are equally caused by

the pleasure we find in the exercise of them.[1040] This is the great

mover and originator of all. Every thing that we have, and every thing

that we are, we owe to the external world; nor is Man himself aught else

except what he is made by the objects which surround him.[1041]

[1028] _Biog. Univ._ vol. xx. p. 29.

[1029] 'Si la nature, au lieu de mains et de doigts flexibles, eût

terminé nos poignets par un pied de cheval; qui doute que les

hommes, sans art, sans habitations, sans défense contre les

animaux, tout occupés du soin de pourvoir à leur nourriture et

d'éviter les bêtes féroces, ne fussent encore errants dans les

forêts comme des troupeaux fugitifs?' _Helvétius_, _De

l'Esprit_, vol. i. p. 2. Had Helvétius ever read the attack of

Aristotle against Anaxagoras for asserting that [Greek: dia to

cheiroas echein, phronimôtaton einai tôn zôôn ton anthrôpon]?

_Cudworth_, _Intellect. Syst._ vol. iii. p. 311.

[1030] _De l'Esprit_, vol. i. p. 2.

[1031] _Ibid._ vol. i. p. 4.

[1032] 'En effet la mémoire ne peut être qu'un des organes de la

sensibilité physique.' vol. i. p. 6. Compare what M. Lepelletier

says on this, in his _Physiologie Médicale_, vol. iii. p. 272.

[1033] 'D'où je conclus que tout jugement n'est qu'une sensation.' _De

l'Esprit_, vol. i. p. 10; '_juger_, comme je l'ai déjà prouvé,

n'est proprement que _sentir_.' p. 41.

[1034] 'Né sensible à la douleur et au plaisir, c'est à la sensibilité

physique que l'homme doit ses passions; et à ses passions, qu'il

doit tous ses vices et toutes ses vertus.' _Ibid._ vol. ii. p.

53; and see vol. i. p. 239.

[1035] 'Une fois parvenu à cette vérité, je découvre facilement la

source des vertus humaines; je voie que sans la sensibilité à la

douleur et au plaisir physique, les hommes, sans désirs, sans

passions, également indifférents à tout, n'eussent point connu

d'intérêt personnel; que sans intérêt personnel ils ne se

fussent point rassemblés en société, n'eussent point fait

entr'eux de conventions, qu'il n'y eût point eu d'intérêt

général, par conséquent point d'actions justes ou injustes; et

qu'ainsi la sensibilité physique et l'intérêt personnel ont été

les auteurs de toute justice.' _Ibid._ vol. i. p. 278.

[1036] _De l'Esprit_, vol. ii. pp. 19, 20, 30, 34, 293, 294, 318.

Compare Epicurus, in _Diog. Laert. de Vit. Philos._ lib. x. seg.

120, vol. i. p. 654.

[1037] _De l'Esprit_, vol. ii. p. 45. He sums up: 'il s'ensuit que

l'amitié, ainsi que l'avarice, l'orgueil, l'ambition et les

autres passions, est l'effet immédiat de la sensibilité

physique.'