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.38

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 intui

"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 calls 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.

tive 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;39 and that, on the same principle, the first is better suited to thinkers, the other to scholars.40 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;"1 a

39

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.

10 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."

"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

theory which, though often misunderstood, is pregnant with great truths, and is better calculated than any other system tc develop the intellect, because it involves that clear conception of law, the attainment of which is the highest point the human understanding can reach.

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, 12 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; that it was introduced into France during the glimpse of freedom which preceded the power of Louis XIV.;" that it was forcibly repressed in his arbitrary reign;45 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.

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; and by the middle of the eighteenth century, they had

doctrine of necessity, or something extremely like it, laid down by Augustin. See the interesting extracts in Neander's Hist. 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.

42

"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."

43 Jansenius was born in a village near Leerdam, and was educated, if I mistake not, in Utrecht.

44 The introduction of Jansenism into France is superficially related by Duver net (Hist. de la Sorbonne, vol. ii. pp. 170-175); but the reader will find a contem porary 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, men tions 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. Mem. dOmer Talon, vol. ii. pp. 280, 281.

112.

45 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. 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.

"La Sorbonne, moliniste sous Louis XIV, fut janséniste sous le régent, et toujours divisée." Duvernet, Hist. de la Sorbonne, vol. ii. p. 225.

organized a powerful party in the French parliament.47 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, 48 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." Their views were likewise supported by Laverdy, controllergeneral in 1764, and by Terray, controller of finances in 1769.5° The procureur-general, Gilbert des Voisins, was a Jansenist ;51 so also was one of his successors, Chauvelin ;52 and so was the advocate-general Pelletier de Saint-Fargeau;53 and so too was Camus, the well-known advocate of the clergy.54 Turgot, the greatest statesman of the age, is said to have embraced the same opinions;55 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.

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. 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

56

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; Mem. de Georgel, vol. ii. p. 262; Mém. de Bouillé, vol. i. p. 67; Palmer's Treatise on the Church, vol. i. pp. 327, 328.

4 Lav allie, Hist. des Français, vol. iii. p. 439.

49 Soulavie, Règne de Louis XVI, vol. i. pp. 31, 145.

50 Tocqueville, Règne de Louis XV, vol. ii. p. 385; Euvres de Voltaire, vol. liv. p. 275; Mém. de Georgel, vol. i. pp. 49-51.

51 Duvernet, Vie de Voltaire, p. 90.

52

Lacretelle, XVIII Siècle, vol. ii. p. 119; Lavallée, vol. iii. p. 477.

63 Mém. de Georgel, vol. i. p. 57.

La Fayette, Mém. vol. ii. p. 53; Dumont, Souvenirs, p. 154; Georgel, vol. ii. p. 353, vol. iii. p. 10.

Soulavie, Règne de Louis XVI, vol. iii. p. 137.

"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, Mem. de Marie Antoinette, vol. iii. pp. 19, 21; Sismondi, Hist. des Franç vol. xxix. pp. 111, 227.

be laid before them.57 In August, they were forbidden to re ceive novices, their colleges were closed, and a number of their most celebrated works were publicly burned by the common hangman. Finally, in 1762, another edict appeared, by which the Jesuits were condemned without even being heard in their own defence; 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.60

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! 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! 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, 63 is to confuse the cause of an act with the pretext

57 Lavallée, Hist. des Français, vol. iii. p. 476. Flassan, Diplomatie Franç. vol. vi. p. 491.

69 "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'Histoire du Jacobinisme, vol. ii p. 264.

co 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, Mem. de Diderot, vol. ii. pp. 127, 130-132.

Flassan, Hist. de la Diplomatie, vol. vi. pp. 486-488.

"Enfin ils furent mis en cause, et le parlement de Paris eut l'étonnement et a joie de voir les jésuites amenés devant lui comme de vils banqueroutiers." Lacre telle, XVIII Siècle, vol. ii. p. 252. "Condemned in France as fraudulent traders." Schlosser's Eighteenth Century, vol. iv. p. 451.

63 Several writers attribute the destruction of the Jesuits to the exertions of Madame de Pompadour!