the church. The crown, in passing through a similar struggle against the
feudal nobility to that of other countries, had succeeded in securing its
victory without yielding those concessions to the demands of the people
which in our own country were extorted from it by the civil war. The
strength gained by the defeat of the nobility in the wars of the Fronde,
offered the opportunity for an able sovereign like Louis XIV to dry up all
sources of independent power, by centralizing all authority in the
monarchy. Proud in the consciousness of internal power and foreign
victory, surrounded by wealth and talent, with a court and literature
which were the glory of the country, he seemed likely to transmit his
power to coming generations. But the inherent weakness of despotism was
soon apparent. Unrestrained authority appertains only to the Divine
government, because power is there synonymous with goodness; but it is
always unsafe in human. The wisdom which partially supplied the place of
goodness in Louis XIV being wanting in his successor, unchecked
selfishness produced the corruption which brought inevitable ruin.
These remarks on the political state of France will sufficiently show why
a free criticism directed against either religion or tyranny should assume
revolutionary tendencies, and should manifest an antipathy to social and
ecclesiastical institutions, as well as to the principles on which they
were supposed to depend.
But the forces operating in the world of mind, as well as in society, must
also be understood, in order to estimate the influence of unbelief in
France. In a previous lecture we have seen that in the middle of the
seventeenth century the philosophy of Descartes had created a complete
revolution in modes of thought. It was only in the philosophy of Spinoza
that it produced theological unbelief; but by its indirect influence it
had led generally to an entire reconsideration of the first data of
reasoning, and the method of establishing truth; and thus had stimulated
the struggle of reason against faith, of inquiry against credulity, of
progress against reaction, and of hopefulness in the future against
reverence for the past. The activity of mind displayed in the literature
of the reign of Louis XIV is its first expression.(501) But thoughts
ferment long in society before they fully express themselves in form: they
first exist as suggestions; then they become doubts; lastly, they pass
into disbelief. It was not until the time of the regency,(502) which
ensued after the death of Louis, that the literature became impressed with
a thoroughly new tone.(503)
Other causes of a more direct kind cooperated. The English philosophy of
Locke, which marked an epoch in speculation, was introduced at that time.
This philosophy however could not have resulted in those speculations
which arose in France, if it had not been carried farther by the analysis
which Condillac employed in that country, analogous to that of Hume in
Scotland. In itself it expressed the reasoning type of mind and thought
which reigned throughout the English literature; but the corollaries from
it which produced harm were no part of the original system.(504)
Condillac, desiring to carry out the analysis of the origin of knowledge,
lost sight of the intellectual element in Locke’s account of the process
of reflection; denied the existence of innate faculties as well as innate
ideas; and attempted to show that man’s mind is so passive, so dependent
on the evidence of the senses for the material of its thoughts, and on
language for the power to combine them, that its very faculties are
transformed sensations.(505) From these premises it was not hard for his
followers to draw the inferences of materialism(506) in philosophy,
selfishness in morals, and an entire denial of those religious truths
which cannot be proved by sensuous evidence. This philosophy began to
leaven the mind of France, and was accepted by nearly the whole of French
unbelievers.
Such was the intellectual state of France in reference to the standard of
appeal contemporaneously with the political and ecclesiastical condition
before described. In the state and church all was authority; all was of
the past; in the world of literature and philosophy all was criticism,
activity, hope in the future. Into a soil thus prepared the seeds of
unbelief on the subject of religion were introduced. We cannot deny that
they were imported mainly from England. Doubt had indeed not been wholly
wanting in France. In the preceding centuries Montaigne(507) and
Charron,(508) and, at the commencement of the one of which we speak,
Bayle(509) and Fontenelle,(510) were probably harassed with disbelief, and
their influence was certainly productive of doubt. And free thought, in
the form of literary criticism of the scriptures, had brought down the
denunciation of the French church on Richard Simon.(511) But undoubtedly
the direct parent of the French unbelief was English deism.(512) In no age
of French history has English literature possessed so powerful an
influence.(513) England had recently achieved those liberties of which
France felt the need. It had safely outlived civil war and revolution, and
had established constitutional liberty and religious toleration. In
England the victims of the French oppression found shelter. Being itself
free, it became the refuge for the exile, the shelter for the oppressed.
It thus became the object of study to the politician, and of love to the
philanthropist. Its literature too, in two branches, viz. political
inquiry, and, towards the middle of the century, romance, offered subjects
for imitation. Montesquieu studied the former; Rousseau and Diderot the
latter. But England furnished also a series of fearless inquirers on the
subject of religion, whose works became the subject of study and of
translation.(514) Voltaire spent three years of exile in England,(515) at
the time when the ferment existed concerning Woolston’s attack on
miracles, and both knew Bolingbroke personally, and translated his
writings.
Having now explained the sources of doubt in France; we must next direct
our attention to the course of its speculations, and to the chief authors.
If we estimate its course by literary works, or by social and political
movements, we may distribute the history of it into two periods; one
comprising the first half of the century, wherein it attacks the French
church and Christianity; the other, the latter half, wherein it mingles
itself with the demand for political change, and assaults the state,(516)
until its effects are seen in the anarchy of the French revolution. In the
former of these periods the unbelief is tentative and suggestive. About
the time of the transition to the second, in the pride of supposed victory
it becomes dogmatic. Christianity is supposed to be exploded. Philosophy
seeks to occupy its place in the social and intellectual world. The early
doubters and Voltaire mark the former of these epochs. Diderot and the
French encyclopædists, with the ramification of their school at the court
of Frederick II of Prussia, form the point of transition. Rousseau marks
the opening of the second period, when unbelief was attempting to
reconstruct society and remodel education. The selfish philosophy of
Helvetius and his friends then carries on the course of the history of
unbelief, until in the storm of the revolution it shows itself in the
teaching of Volney, and the absurd acts of the theophilanthropists.
The name of Voltaire, which the logical and chronological order introduces
first to our notice, is so preeminent, that his character and teaching may
express the history of the early movement in France.
The story of his life, so far as we require now to be made acquainted with
it, can be briefly told.(517) Born toward the close of the seventeenth
century, he manifested, as a legend assures us, such a doubting spirit,
even in boyhood, that his priestly preceptor predicted that he would prove
a Coryphæus of deism. His rare precocity of intellect early acquired for
him a reputation in the world of letters. Compelled to become an exile in
England,(518) he studied its politics, its science, and its scepticism. On
his return to France, he endeavoured to introduce among his countrymen the
cosmical and mathematical doctrines of Newton; and made himself
conspicuous in history, in poetry, in fiction, and above all, in theology,
by his attacks on revealed religion and the French church. About the
middle of the century, accepting an invitation to the court of Frederick
the Great of Prussia, he aided thence the introduction of infidel
doctrines in Germany. A few years later he withdrew into retirement at
Ferney, but was able from his seclusion to wield an intellectual power
throughout Europe.
It was from this retirement that he denounced the acts of tyranny, or
supposed injustice, inflicted by the French church. His indignant
denunciations in the cases of the Sirven,(519) of La Barre,(520) and above
all of the Calas,(521) gained for him the commendation and sympathy of
Europe, and remain as monuments of the power of the pen.
Such was his life. Let us search in it for the secret of his power, and
inquire what were his views in the department which we are studying.
His character has been analysed by so many critics, especially by one of
our own countrymen in an essay of rare power, now become classical, that
the opportunity of original investigation is impossible, and the attempt
undesirable.(522)
In the opinion of this writer, the secret of Voltaire’s strength was the
tact which he displayed in expressing the wants of his time to his
countrymen in the precise mode most suited to them.(523) He belonged to
the class of those who exercise their influence in their own lifetime—men
of the present, not men of the future; accordingly, whether he be viewed
as a man, in his own personal qualities, in the moral and intellectual
properties which constituted his character, or as an artist, in the manner
in which he conveyed his thoughts to the world, he will be found to be the
loftiest exponent and type of the spirit of his age. It was an age without
originality, without spiritual insight, careful of manners rather than
morals, corrupted by selfishness, led by ambition, dissatisfied with the
present, and anxious for deliverance; but unable to espy the real causes
of the mischief, and to escape confusing principles with men; fond of form
rather than material; classical rather than Gothic; critical rather than
reverent; proud of its own discoveries, without appreciation of the
efforts of the past.—Such are the qualities which characterised the times
of Voltaire,(524) and in their most striking form marked his mind.
To qualities which were thus in some sense formed in him by circumstances,
he added remarkable ones which were Nature’s special gift to him. His
extraordinary tact and good sense, both in dealing personally with
individuals and in literary criticism; his fiery ardour, and vehement
spirit of proselytism; his singular penetration of vision, and power to
arrange in the clearest mode the thoughts which he wished to transmit;
above all, his wit and wonderful power of satire were qualities which,
though in some degree shared by his countrymen, cannot be explained by
mere circumstances, but are natural gifts. These three intellectual
endowments, acuteness, order, and satire,(525) are regarded by the
authority that we are taking for our guide, as the qualities which formed
the secret of his power as a writer, and at the same time as the sources
of intellectual temptation which prevented him from gaining a deeper
insight into truth, and deprived him of influence with posterity. For his
quickness prevented the exercise of the reflection, the patient
meditation, which is the only high road to solve the mysteries of
existence. It has been well said,(526) that Voltaire saw so much more
deeply at a glance than other men, that no second glance was ever given by
him. His power of order assisting his quickness, was a still further
temptation. Though far inferior in erudition to some of his
contemporaries, such as Diderot, and in depth of feeling to Rousseau,
lacking originality, and borrowing most of his philosophical thoughts at
second hand, he yet surpassed them all by a matchless power of
arrangement. The perfection of form diverted attention from the subject
matter. He possessed method rather than genius, intellect rather than
imagination. But above all his other powers, his most singular gift was
his power of satire. When stimulated by a sense of injustice, or of hatred
against men or systems, it made him omnipotent in destruction. This
satirical power contributed to preclude the possession of depth of
reflection. Ridicule has an office in criticism. It is the true punishment
of folly. But it has been well observed,(527) that it is dangerous to him
who employs it, as being directly opposed to humility. The satirist places
himself above that which he ridicules, and makes himself the judge: the
humility of the listener is laid aside; the selfish belief of his own
infallibility is fostered; forbearance and sympathy are laid aside. The
critic argues, the satirist only laughs. Pity may be compatible with
humour, but only contempt with satire. Voltaire was by nature a satirist;
and when his mockery was applied to a subject like Christianity or
religion, his utter want of reverence not only caused him to substitute a
caricature for a picture, but prevented him from exercising discrimination
in distinguishing Christianity from its counterfeit, religion from the
ministers of it. Hence his attacks on Christianity partake of the tone of
blasphemy; and he manifests in reference to religion, which to most
readers was the most sacred of subjects, a tone of indescribable
scurrility, which was not only inexcusable and disgraceful if viewed
merely in a literary point of view, but constituted politically a public
outrage against the dearest feelings of others which no citizen has a
right to perpetrate.(528) This tone too was mainly his own; and is not to
be found, except in rare instances, in the English deists from whom he
borrowed.
We have tried to comprehend the mind of Voltaire, to notice his
peculiarities and faults, before considering his opinions; because his
influence was due to his mental and personal character rather than to the
matter of his writings. It remains to state his views on religion, and the
grounds of his attack on revelation. The chief materials for ascertaining
them are the four volumes in the vast collection of his works, which
contain his philosophical and theological writings.(529) They partake of
every variety of form,—essays, letters, treatises, pamphlets,
translations, commentaries. They include, besides smaller works, a
commentary on the Old Testament; translations of parts of Bolingbroke and
of Toland; an investigation concerning the establishment of Christianity;
deist sermons which he pretends had been delivered; discourses written
under false names;(530) and doubts proposed and solved after the manner of
preceding philosophers. Yet in these numerous treatises there is no claim
to originality. His doubts and his beliefs are taken mainly from the
English deists; and chiefly from Bolingbroke, the most French in mind of
any of the English school.
A few words therefore will suffice to characterise his opinions. It
appears that he believed in a God,(531) but firmly disbelieved the divine
origin of the revealed religion, Jewish and Christian. The main purpose of
his life however was not affirmation, but denial.(532) Accordingly the
sole object of all his efforts was to destroy belief in the plenary
inspiration of the scriptures, and the divine origin of revelation which
is attested by them. There is hardly a book in scripture that he did not
attack. Successively surveying the narrative of Jewish history, the
Gospels, and statements of early church history,(533) he tried to show
absurdities and contradictions in them all; not so much literary
differences in the authors as difficulties of belief in the material
revealed. In his views of Judaism and of Christianity he seems to have
fluctuated between attributing them to the fraud or mistake of their
propagators, and denying their originality. The science of historical
criticism was beginning in his day, and was applied to the legends of
Roman history. Voltaire embodied the spirit of this inquiry. In his
histories he exemplified the cold, worldly, modern mode of looking at
events, as opposed to the providential and theocratic view of them which
had found expression as recently as in the works of Bossuet.(534) And he
transferred this method to the treatment of holy scripture. No new branch
of information was left unused by him for contributing to his impious
purpose. The numerous works of travels which were affording an
acquaintance with the mythology of other nations, were made to furnish him
with the materials for hastily applying one solution to all the early
Jewish histories, which he failed to invalidate by the application of the
historic method just described. By an inversion of the argument of the
early Christian apologists, he pretended that the early history preserved
among the Hebrews was borrowed from the heathens, instead of claiming that
the heathen mythology was a trace of Hebrew tradition; and, with a view to
sustain this opinion, he discredited the integrity of the Hebrew
literature. In nothing is his singular want of poetic taste, and of the
power to appreciate the beauties of the literature of young nations, and
the ethical value of moral institutions, more visible, than in denying the
literary and monumental value of the Bible, and the moral influence of
Christianity.(535) Infidels who have hated revealed religion as bitterly
as Voltaire, have at least not had the meanness or the want of taste to
depreciate the literary and moral interest which attaches to it.
Such was the character of the man, and of the efforts which he directed to
the injury of revelation. It has been said(536) that to obliterate his
influence from the history of the eighteenth century would be to produce a
greater difference than the absence of any other individual in it would
occasion; and would be similar to the omission of Luther from the
sixteenth. The analogy, though startling, is true in the particulars which
it is intended to illustrate. The influence of each was European in his
respective century; and the doctrine acted not only on the world of
thought, but of action.
We have described Voltaire alone; not because he was isolated by any
interval of time from a general movement, but because his attack is more
rudimentary, being directed rather to disintegrate Christianity than
dogmatically to affirm unbelief. He was perhaps rather logically prior to
the others than chronologically; being really connected with two bodies of
men, which formed the centres of two infidel movements, the one in Paris,
the other at the court of Frederick at Berlin.
Frederick the Great surrounded himself with French literary men.(537) They
were mostly persons who were exiles from France to escape persecution for
their opinions, who had first found a refuge in Holland, and thence
endeavoured by means of the Dutch booksellers to introduce their writings
into France. From about 1740-60 several such teachers of infidelity were
invited to the Prussian court, and dispersed their influence in Germany;
the effects of which we shall subsequently find. One of them was the
physician La Mettrie,(538) who wrote works on physiology marked by a low
materialism. Such also was De Prades,(539) and more especially
D’Argens.(540) The latter, struck with the force of “the Persian Letters”
of Montesquieu, threw his doubts into an epistolary form, “the Jewish
Letters;” in which the traditional opinions and ruling systems of the time
were attacked with great freedom. He translated also some ancient works to
serve his purpose, especially the fragments of the abusive work of the
emperor Julian against Christianity, written in favour of the state
religion of the Greeks and Romans.
While this was the character of some of the Frenchmen at the court of
Frederick, whom Voltaire subsequently joined; men who, imbued with the
most extravagant form of the philosophy of sensation, verged upon
materialism; there were coteries of literary persons in Paris, which were
the rallying point of sceptical minds, and centres of irreligious
influence.
The existence of them is due in part to the altered position already named
which literature assumed in reference to the court during the regency.
Instead of being fostered, it was discouraged; and Fleury manifested an
almost puritan spirit, and has left on record the expression of his alarm
at the growing sceptical tone of literary works, and the imitation of the
English spirit. Owing accordingly to the absence of patronage, and to the
lavishment of those favours on extravagance which the elder Louis had
bestowed on the fostering of intellect, literature became disjoined from
court influences; and hence there grew up small centres of literary
influence, analogous to those preceding the times of Louis XIV,(541) and
nuclei for intellectual movement, where of old the various bodies had all
moved round one central sun.
It would be irrelevant to enter into the details of these coteries. (23)
Some were simply of fashion and taste; but others were undoubtedly
gatherings of powerful thinkers, imbued with infidel principles, whose
character belongs to French literature and the mental and moral culture of
the time. One of the most remarkable of these coteries included names
noted in French literature, such as Voltaire, Diderot, D’Alembert,(542)
D’Holbach, Marmontel,(543) Helvetius, Grimm,(544) St. Lambert,(545) and
Raynal.(546) We must notice some of them in detail, in order at once to
appreciate the character of their works, and to illustrate the relation of
their unbelief to the philosophy which they adopted.(547)