To these early fluctuations in his religious creed, may be ascribed his singularly accurate knowledge of controversial theology, and of the lives and tenets of the most distinguished divines of both churches, a knowledge much more minute than a person of his talents could well be supposed to accumulate from the mere impulse of literary curiosity. In these respects he exhibits a striking resemblance to the historian of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: Nor is the parallel between them less exact in the similar effects produced on their minds, by the polemical cast of their juvenile studies. Their common propensity to indulge in indecency is not so easily explicable. In neither does it seem to have originated in the habits of a dissolute youth; but in the wantonness of a polluted and distempered imagination. Bayle, it is well known, led the life of an anchoret;* and the licentiousness of his pen is, on that very account, the more reprehensible. But (every thing considered) the grossness of Gibbon is certainly the more unaccountable, and perhaps the more unpardonable of the two.†

On the mischievous tendency of Bayle's work to unsettle the principles of superficial readers, and (what is worse) to damp the moral enthusiasm of youth, by shak

of a philosophical argument against the doctrine of transubstantiation; that the text of Scripture, which seems to inculcate the real presence, is attested only by a single sense-our sight; while the real presence itself is disproved by three of our senses the sight, the touch, and the taste. (Ibid. p. 58.) That this" philosophical argument" should have had any influence on the mind of Gibbon, even at the early period of life when he made the discovery," would appear highly improbable, if the fact were not attested by himself; but as for Bayle, whose logical acumen was of a far harder and keener edge, it seems quite impossible to conceive, "that the study of physics" was at all necessary to open his eyes to the absurdity of the real presence; or that he would not at once have perceived the futility of appealing to our senses or to our reason, against an article of faith which professedly disclaims the authority of both.

"Chaste dans ses mœurs, grave dans ses discours, sobre dans ses alimens, austère dans son genre de vie." (Portrait de Bayle par M. Saurin, dans son Sermon sur l'accord de la religion avec la politique.)

† In justice to Bayle, and also to Gibbon, it should be remembered, that over the most offensive passages in their works they have drawn the veil of the learned languages. It was reserved for the translators of the Historical and Critical Dictionary to tear this veil assunder, and to expose the indelicacy of their author to every curious eye. It is impossible to observe the patient industry and fidelity with which they have executed this part of their task, without feelings of indignation and disgust. For such an outrage on taste and decorum, their tedious and feeble attacks on the Manicheism of Bayle offer but a poor compensation. Of all Bayle's suspected heresies, it was perhaps that which stood the least in need of a serious refutation; and, if the case had been otherwise, their incompetency to contend with such an adversary would have only injured the cause which they professed to defend.

ing their faith in the reality of virtue, it would be superfluous to enlarge. The fact is indisputable, and is admitted even by his most partial admirers. It may not be equally useless to remark the benefits which (whether foreseen or not by the author, is of little consequence) have actually resulted to literature from his indefatigable labors. One thing will, I apprehend, be very generally granted in his favor, that, if he has taught men to suspend their judgment, he has taught them also to think and to reason for themselves; a lesson which appeared to a late philosophical divine of so great importance, as to suggest to him a doubt, whether it would not be better for authors to state nothing but premises, and to leave to their readers the task of forming their own conclusions.* Nor can Bayle be candidly accused of often discovering a partiality for any particular sect of philosophers. He opposes Spinoza and Hobbes with the same spirit and ability, and apparently with the same good faith, with which he controverts the doctrines of Anaxagoras and of Plato. Even the ancient sceptics, for whose mode of philosophizing he might be supposed to have felt some degree of tenderness, are treated with as little ceremony as the most extravagant of the dogmatists. He has been often accused of a leaning to the most absurd of all systems, that of the Manicheans; and it must be owned, that there is none in defence of which he has so often and so ably † exerted his talents; but it is easy to perceive, that, when he does so, it is not from any serious faith which he attaches to it (perhaps the contrary supposition would be nearer the truth,) but from the peculiarly ample field which it opened for the display of his controversial subtlety, and of his inexhaustible stores of miscellaneous information. In one passage he has pronounced with a

See the preface to Bishop Butler's Sermons. † Particularly in the article entitled Paulicians.

One of the earliest as well as the ablest of those who undertook a reply to the passages in Bayle which seem to favor Manicheism, candidly acquits him of any serious design to recommend that system to his readers. En répondant aux objections Manichéenes, je ne prétends faire aucun tort à M. Bayle: qui je ne soupçonne nullement de les favoriser. Je suis persuadé qu'il n'a pris la liberté philosophique de dire, en bien des rencontres, le pour et le contre, sans rien dissimuler, que pour donner de l'exercice à ceux que entendent les matières qu'il traite, et non pour favoriser ceux dont il explique les raisons." (Parrhasiana, ou Pensées Diverses, p. 302, par M. Le Clerc, Amsterdam, 1699.)

tone of decision which he seldom assumes, that "it is absurd, indefensible, and inconsistent with the regularity and order of the universe; that the arguments in favor of it are liable to be retorted; and that, granting it to be true, it would afford no solution of the difficulties in question." The apparent zeal with which, on various occasions, he has taken up its defence, may, I think, be reasonably accounted for, by the favorable opportunity it afforded him of measuring his logical powers with those of Leibnitz.t

*

To these considerations it may be added, that, in consequence of the progress of the sciences since Bayle's time, the unlimited scepticism commonly, and perhaps justly imputed to him, is much less likely to mislead than it was a century ago; while the value of his researches, and of his critical reflections, becomes every day more conspicuous, in proportion as more enlarged views of nature, and of human affairs, enable us to combine together that mass of rich but indigested materials, in the compilation of which his own opinions and principles seem to have been totally lost. Neither comprehension, indeed, nor generalization, nor metaphysical depth,‡ are to be numbered among the characteristical attributes of his genius. Far less does he ever anticipate, by the moral lights of the soul, the slow and hesitating decisions of the understanding; or touch with a privileged hand those mysterious chords to which all the social sympathies of our

* See the illustration upon the Sceptics at the end of the Dictionary. †This supposition may be thought inconsistent with the well known fact, that the Théodicée of Leibnitz was not published till after the death of Bayle. But it must be recollected, that Bayle had previously entered the lists with Leibnitz in the article Rorarius, where he had urged some very acute and forcible objections against the scheme of pre-established harmony; a scheme wh ch leads so naturally and obviously to that of optimism, that it was not difficult to foresee what ground Leibnitz was likely to take in defending his principles. The great aim of Bayle seems to have been to provoke Leibnitz to unfold the whole of his system and of its necessary consequences; well knowing what advantages in the management of such a controversy would be on the side of the assailant.

The tribute paid by Leibnitz to the memory of his illustrious antagonist deserves to be quoted. Sperandum est, Bælium luminibus illis nunc circumdari, quod terris negatum est: cum credibile sit, bonam voluntatem ei nequaquam defuisse."

"Candidus insuetum miratur limen Olympi,

Sub pedibusque videt nubes et sidera Daphnis."

I speak of that metaphysical depth which is the exclusive result of what Newton called Patient Thinking. In logical quickness, and metaphysical subtlety, Bayle has never been surpassed.

frame are responsive. Had his ambition, however, been more exalted, or his philanthropy more warm and diffusive, he would probably have attempted less than he actually accomplished; nor would he have stooped to enjoy that undisputed pre-eminence which the public voice has now unanimously assigned him, among those inestimable though often ill-requited authors, whom Johnson has called "the pioneers of literature.”

The suspense of judgment which Bayle's Dictionary inspires with respect to facts, is, perhaps, still more useful that than which it encourages in matters of abstract reasoning. Fontenelle certainly went much too far, when he said of history, that it was only a collection of Fables Convenues;-a most significant and happy phrase, to which I am sorry that I cannot do justice in an English version. But, though. Fontenelle pushed his maxim to an extreme, there is yet a great deal of important truth in the remark; and of this I believe every person's conviction will be stronger, in proportion as his knowledge of men and of books is profound and extensive.

Of the various lessons of historical scepticism to be learned from Bayle, there is none more practically valuable (more especially in such revolutionary times as we have witnessed) than that which relates to the biographical portraits of distinguished persons, when drawn by their theological and political opponents. In illustration of this, I have only to refer to the copious and instructive extracts which he has produced from Roman Catholic writers, concerning the lives, and still more concerning the deaths, of Luther, Knox,* Buchanan, and various other leaders or partisans of the Reformation. It would be impossible for any well-informed Protestant to read these extracts, without indulging a smile at their incredible absurdity, if every feeling of levity were not lost in a sentiment of deep indignation at the effrontery and falsehood of their authors. In stating this observation, I have taken my examples from Roman Catholic libellers, without any illiberal prejudices against the members of that church. The injustice done by Protestants to some of

See Note (M m.)

the conscientious defenders of the old faith has been, in all probability, equally great; but this we have no opportunity of ascertaining here, by the same direct evidence to which we can fortunately appeal, in vindication of the three characters mentioned above. With the history of two of them every person in this country is fully acquainted; and I have purposely selected them in preference to others, as their names alone are sufficient to cover with disgrace the memory of their calumniators.*

A few years before the death of Bayle, Fontenelle began to attract the notice of Europe. I class them together on account of the mighty influence of both on the literary taste of their contemporaries; an influence in neither case founded on any claims to original genius, or to important improvements; but on the attractions which they possessed in common (though in very different ways) as popular writers; and on the easy and agreeable access which their works opened to the opinions and speculations of the learned. Nor do I depart so far, as might at first be supposed, from the order of chronology, in passing from the one to the other. For though Fontenelle survived almost to our own times (having very nearly completed a century at the time of his death,) the interval between his birth and that of Bayle was only ten years, and he had actually published several volumes, both in prose and verse, before the Dictionary of Bayle appeared.

But my chief reason for connecting Fontenelle rather with the contemporaries of his youth than with those of his old age is, that, during the latter part of his life, he was left far behind in his philosophical creed (for he

Of all Bayle's works, "the most useful and the least sceptical," according to Gibbon, "is his Commentaire Philosophique on these words of the Gospel, Compel them to come in."

The great object of this commentary is to establish the general principles of Toleration, and to remonstrate with the members of the Protestant churches on the inconsistency of their refusing to those they esteem heretics, the same indulgence which they claim for themselves in Catholic countries. The work is diffuse and rambling, like all Bayle's compositions; but the matter is excellent, and well deserves the praise which Gibbon has bestowed on it.

Bayle died in 1706. Fontenelle's first work in prose (the Dialogues of the Dead) was published as early as 1683, and was quickly followed by his Conversations on the Plurality of Worlds.