« ForrigeFortsett »
proofs which they ever adduced,” against the Royalists in La Vendée. On the subject of this systematic falsehood, he obferves :
“ I have not here advanced a single word that is not rigidly true; and this theory of lying, this confecration of calamns, will hereafter be claffed among the phenomena of the revolution. The harangues of Danton and his associates on The Calumny which is allowable again? the Enemies of Liberty, cannot be forgotten; and it is well known, that the words enemies of liberty, like all the other revolutionary de. Dominations, such as Aristocrats, Royalifts, Chonans, &c. always meant and till mean, in the mouth of the execrable faction, all those who are not their accomplices or their flaves. So much for the principle. The babit is so well known, fo openly avowed, that the attempt to prove its existence would not be merely fuperfluous, but absolutely tidiculous; it is so notorious, that if, by any chance, some few exa ceptions should occur to the rule, history will quote them as extraor. dinary facts, as a species of prodigy. It is a fact, that all who are called Jacobins, Mountaineers, Patriots, &c. are every day employed in the fabrication of lies for the use of the morrow. As to the day, falsehood is so far a duty with them, that were any one of them to evince the smallest scruple on that head, he would be treated as an apoitate, a deferter, in short, as an honest man. Among innumerable facts that might be adduced in support of what I advance, I fhall only mention one which occurred in l'endemiaire,* and is too well coni. formed to be difputed. It was declared in the tribune of the Con. vention, thai, the Sellions were labouring to starve Paris. This imposition was not a whit more absurd than a thousand others that were hourly practised. Yet I know not how it happened that, in one of the committees, a member observed that it was not true that the Parisians were endeavouring to starve themselves, and that such a #tory was too ridiculous ; when another member answered, with evident ill humour, It may poffibly not be true ; but it is nevestbelajs very proper thing io be jaid in the tribune. And he was right.
“ Observe, that, in the adoption of this fyftem, their conduct is consistent and the result of necesity. Men, whom every truth accuses and condemns, have no other arm, to use for the purpose of defence or attack (by words), than falsehood. They, therefore, will continue 10 lie so long as they shall be able to lie with impunity. The mo. ment that impunity ceales, all their resources will be destroyed.”
The author traces in a masterly manner the infamous machinations of the revolutionists for the destruction of all reli
* In October 1795, when the Convention insisted on the re-election of cwr- hirds of its own body, and the Parisians resisted this gross violation of the fundamental principle of their new constirution. Revierwer.
gion in France; and he shews that the word religion has even been excluded from the revole Sionary vocabulary; for in all the decrees of the legislature, in all the resolutions of the municipalities, in all the harangues of their orators, it never once occurs : the expreflions, funaticism and worship being invariably substituted for it. This he considers as a faint but certain mark of inward shame, as a real but involuntary homage to religion itself. The abolition of Sunday, and the forced observance of decadary feftivals, are alternately the objects of his ridicule and indignation; he insists that it is no more in the power of men to change ideas, which are the intellectual representation of objects, than to change the very nature of those objects; and that it will be impoflible to enforce the general observance of any periodical festival, which is not founded in religion. Names may be changed, but not things.
“ In the French revolution particularly the name of festival may be given to the anniversary of a great crime, a famous murder, or a memorable massacre. The Jacobins, were they once more to become masters of France, might render their September the object of a feftia val, as it will always be, what Collot D'Herbois properly called it, an article of their credo ; but would no more be a festival with the people of France, or with any other people in the world, than if a gang of highwayınen were to celebrate an orgy in their cavern, to in sult the memory of all the travellers whom they had murdered ; and yet nothing could prevent them from renewing their festival, and ren. dering it annual, until they were sent to the gallows.
On the blafphemous substitution of the Temples of Reason for the Temples of God, he thus cloquently exclaims :
“ O human extravagance ! can your archives, fo ancient and so rich, present any thing to be compared with the Temples of Reason? Fifty thousand Temples of Reason! No, nothing less than the French Revolution was requisite to reduce the human mind to this abject state of degradation. Nothing less than a nation half delirious, half stupified, was requisite to give birth to Temples of Reafon. In a word, the Temples of Reajon are the chef d'euvre, the ne plus ultra, of madness; and it was just, it was proper, that they íhould be given to us. Iuftus es, Domine, et re&tum judicium tuum.
“ Will you tell me of the idolatry of the Egyptians which has been the object of so much derision ?-It was a thousand times less absurd than your own; and had, at least, a real object, a meaning, an intention. It is, no doubt, ridiculous to adore an onion and a crocodile; but the onion is good to eat, and the crocodile is an object of fear. They adored, in a wholesome vegetable, that fertility of which it was the symbol; in the mischievous animal, they impre. cated the vengeance of Heaven, of which ic was the instrument. With them every species of worship was directed through emblems and APPENDIX. VOL.III.
figures to the Deity himself. We know that all their rites, all the hymns, were first addressed to the superior Gods, to lsis, the earth that afforded nourishinent; to Hermes, the inventor of 'the sciences, &c. Every other idea was symbolical and secondary, and only ex. pressive of gratitude or fear. But have the founders of the Temples of Renjer ever told us that under that name they only adored the God from whom all intelligence emanated ? Not one of them dared to do fo, and even this explanation, all insufficient as it would have been, was above the comprehension of most of ihem; as their Festivals of Rea. fon, and their Goddesses of Reajon too plainly demonitrate. No mention was ever made of God at those festivals ; at least, his name was never uit:red but to be blafphemed. It was at the Festivals of Rea. fon that the Goddess of Reason was represented by the first prostitute that fell in their way, who was paid for performing her part, and who was placed in a car with a crucifix under her feet. It was at the Festi. val of Reason that a stage.player ascended the pulpit at St. Roch, and making God a party in his cause, denied his existence in the front of bis altais, and nevertheless vomited forth a thousand furious imprecations against that non-existing God, dared him to exert his vengeance; and because, he did not crush him with his thunder, concluded that there was no God ;* a demonstration which produced the greateit effect on the audience. It was at the Feftivals of Reason that the boft of Marat was placed upon the altar, and that those who were fof. pected of fanaticism (that is of believing in God) were forced to bend their knee to Marat. It was at the Festivals of Reason, that Liberty, another Divinity of those festivals, also appeared in great pomp, represented also, mtoft aptly, by a Prostitute. And yet I am not to be
“ This wretch probably imagined that God was bound in ho. nour to answer his appeal; and that he could not, without disgrace, refuse the challenge. One would have supposed that God could have crushed him no where but in the pulpit at Saint Roch, and that if he lost so fair an opportunity to revenge himself he never would recover it. I will not name this actor, because it is possible he may repent. But you, who, without being mad like him, evince your impatience at the forbearance of God to exterminate those who insult him, reflect on the sublime expresion of St. Austin : Patiens, quia a ternus ; God is patient, because he is eternal. Think that it is just that he, whose blow is remediless, and its effects eternal, should not be in a hurry to inflict it. Think, ye who have some idea of a God, that effential order, is not, cannot be found upon earçh; that the wicked are more to be pitied because they are mere instruments destined to be broken ; that the good, although they may fufier, are much less to be pitied, since they are supported by conscience and by hope, which cannot both fail them; and leave Him to pursue his own course, who, for the puniihment of the one and the reward of the other, has eternity before him,
allowed to express my admiration ; to say, that my admiration is equal to my horror! They may say what they will; but this is glorious, because it is horrible; it is glorious, because it is disgufiful; it is glorious because it excites pity. What! you have an instinct just enough to applaud, when you see a bully chastised for his infolence; and yet you will not make use of that same inftinét to applaud when a people, intoxicated with the most insolent vanity which ever set the good sense of all nations and all ages at defiance, exclaims to the world, • Learn of me to be great,' and instantaneously fails into a ftate of abject degradation hitherto unexampled ;-Learn of ine to be wise,' and instantaneouily displays an excess of extravagance of which no human being had before been capable ;--- Learn of me to be free,' and instantaneously links into a state of subjugation which the vileit Naves in the world would never have borne for a moment ! What, you do not think it glorious that a people who no longer believes in God, who prohibits the adoration of God, thould adore Marat! (and he was really adored by the French ;) that a nation who rejects all worship, should establish a worship for Marat! (and it was established in good earnest). What! do you not see that people immerged in filth, and celebrating its glory, and its greatness! Do you not hear the universal shouts of the whole world, extended through all ages! I hear them distinctly, and I predict, that whenever children shall be taught to read, there will be a chapter, in the books devoted to their use, entitled : Of what happened in France when fihe resolved to regenerate the world; and that chapter will be a short abridgement of ihe French Revolution, adapted to the capacity of children. (Pp. 63-67.)
We would willingly extend our extracts from this interesting book to a much greater length, but the prescribed limits of our work render such extension impra&ticable. With one other short quotation, therefore, we must conclude our review . of it. The author, having contended that all the evils which have desolated his country are chiefly imputable to the writings of the Philosophers, urgently calls on them, either publicly to abjure their principles, or, at least, to keep them to themselves, and thus prevent the inevitable consequences of their propagation.
Only one of you, in 1790, only one (the Abbé Raynal) signed a kind of disavowal of this nature, but drawn up in a manner that gave too great a scope for ridicule, and too little strength to truth.*
This celebrated letter of the Abbé Raynal, which excited great consternation among the Philosophers of the Allembly, at the time when it was presented, and would in all probability have brought the Abbé to tlie Guillotine, had not death anticipated the froke of the ex
What have the rest done? What are they still doing? I speak rot of the old masters; few of them remain, and those few are filent. But the Scholars become Doctors, so proud, and so pleased to rest their philofophy on the revolution, and the revolution on their philos. phy (and in fact they are truly worthy of each other). What is their present conduct? Some of them read at the national inftitute treatises on materialism and atheisın, with such a commanding tone of authority, that one of their brethren thinks himself obliged, with all humility, to ask their permission to believe in God; others still conduct, with an intrepid constancy, philosophical Journals, much patronized but little read, in which our philofophy and our revolution are always held up as the most glorious objects that have been feen since the creation of the world, excepting Robespiere and the Jacobins, whom they give up without dficulty, though the Jacobins do not give up their Robel. piere, nor yet themselves. The former re-print the works of a madman, named La Mérrie, consigned, before the revolution, to the contempt, even of the philosophers themselves, but again brought into vogue by the revolution, as a brave atheist, who gloried in being at once a machine and a plant. The latter eagerly publish rhapsodies which the authors themselves did not dare to print, ir fipid though fcandalous; tedious though impious ; ftupid though extravagant; such in short that it becomes doubtful which are the greateft objects of contempt, those who conceived and wrote them, or those who have the effroniery to praise them. Great works + are published, in which
ecutioner, was previously shewn to Messieurs Malouet and Mallet du Pan, who were then at Paris; and who, we believe, did not entertain the same opinion of it, as that here expressed by M. de la Harpe. Reviewer.
" * Among others James the Fatalist and the Supplement to the Poyage to Otaheite. I have no doubt that this declaration will greatly offend the professors of atheism, who daily prostrate themfelves before the shade of Diderot, and of other old masters of the fame school, who exclaim, in the language of the illuminati, which they fancy is so solemn and august, Shade of Helvetius, hail! Patience, gentie. men, you shall hear by and bye the grounds of my decision."
" + That of Mr. Dupuis, already confuted by some excellent tùriters, but to which I may return hereafter. It is lefs dangerous than the others, because it displays great depth of research, and is not suited to the capacity of most readers; but the author is a superficial scholar, a tirelome writer, and a deteftable reasoner. His work even contains follies, which may be called revolutionary, because they exceed all the follies that were ever known before ; and phrases in which the ideas and the words are at direct variance. Hitherto atheists had been, very consistently, termed ungrateful ; because it is an act of odious ingratitude to disavow, in God, the necesary Being