Chapter VII (1)

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.