OF MAN； having fallen into idolatrous hearts； had produced nothing save innumerable discords and a quasi…poetical mythology。 Instead of developing into their practical consequences the principles of morality and government taught by The Word of God； his followers busied themselves in speculations as to his birth； his origin； his person； and his actions； they discussed his parables； and from the conflict of the most extravagant opinions upon unanswerable questions and texts which no one understood； was born THEOLOGY；which may be defined as the SCIENCE OF THE INFINITELY ABSURD。
The truth of CHRISTIANITY did not survive the age of the apostles； the GOSPEL； commented upon and symbolized by the Greeks and Latins； loaded with pagan fables； became literally a mass of contradictions； and to this day the reign of the INFALLIBLE CHURCH has been a long era of darkness。 It is said that the GATES OF HELL will not always prevail； that THE WORD OF GOD will return； and that one day men will know truth and justice； but that will be the death of Greek and Roman Catholicism； just as in the light of science disappeared the caprices of opinion。
The monsters which the successors of the apostles were bent on destroying； frightened for a moment； reappeared gradually； thanks to the crazy fanaticism； and sometimes the deliberate connivance； of priests and theologians。 The history of the enfranchisement of the French communes offers constantly the spectacle of the ideas of justice and liberty spreading among the people； in spite of the combined efforts of kings； nobles； and clergy。 In the year 1789 of the Christian era； the French nation； divided by caste； poor and oppressed； struggled in the triple net of royal absolutism； the tyranny of nobles and parliaments； and priestly intolerance。 There was the right of the king and the right of the priest； the right of the patrician and the right of the plebeian； there were the privileges of birth； province； communes； corporations； and trades； and； at the bottom of all； violence； immorality； and misery。 For some time they talked of reformation； those who apparently desired it most favoring it only for their own profit； and the people who were to be the gainers expecting little and saying nothing。 For a long time these poor people； either from distrust； incredulity； or despair； hesitated to ask for their rights： it is said that the habit of serving had taken the courage away from those old communes； which in the middle ages were so bold。
Finally a book appeared； summing up the whole matter in these two propositions： WHAT IS THE THIRD ESTATE？NOTHING。 WHAT OUGHT IT TO BE？EVERY THING。 Some one added by way of comment： WHAT IS THE KING？THE SERVANT OF THE PEOPLE。
This was a sudden revelation： the veil was torn aside； a thick bandage fell from all eyes。 The people commenced to reason thus：
If the king is our servant； he ought to report to us；
If he ought to report to us； he is subject to control；
If he can be controlled； he is responsible；
If he is responsible； he is punishable；
If he is punishable； he ought to be punished according to his merits；
If he ought to be punished according to his merits； he can be punished with death。
Five years after the publication of the brochure of Sieyes； the third estate was every thing； the king； the nobility； the clergy； were no more。 In 1793； the nation； without stopping at the constitutional fiction of the inviolability of the sovereign； conducted Louis XVI。 to the scaffold； in 1830； it accompanied Charles X。 to Cherbourg。 In each case； it may have erred； in fact； in its judgment of the offence； but； in right； the logic which led to its action was irreproachable。 The people； in punishing their sovereign； did precisely that which the government of July was so severely censured for failing to do when it refused to execute Louis Bonaparte after the affair of Strasburg： they struck the true culprit。 It was an application of the common law； a solemn decree of justice enforcing the penal laws。＇1＇
＇1＇ If the chief of the executive power is responsible； so must the deputies be also。 It is astonishing that this idea has never occurred to any one； it might be made the subject of an interesting essay。 But I declare that I would not； for all the world； maintain it； the people are yet much too logical for me to furnish them with arguments。
The spirit which gave rise to the movement of '89 was a spirit of negation； that； of itself； proves that the order of things which was substituted for the old system was not methodical or well… considered； that； born of anger and hatred； it could not have the effect of a science based on observation and study； that its foundations； in a word； were not derived from a profound knowledge of the laws of Nature and society。 Thus the people found that the republic； among the so…called new institutions； was acting on the very principles against which they had fought； and was swayed by all the prejudices which they had intended to destroy。 We congratulate ourselves； with inconsiderate enthusiasm； on the glorious French Revolution； the regeneration of 1789； the great changes that have been effected； and the reversion of institutions： a delusion； a delusion！
When our ideas on any subject； material； intellectual； or social； undergo a thorough change in consequence of new observations； I call that movement of the mind REVOLUTION。 If the ideas are simply extended or modified； there is only PROGRESS。 Thus the system of Ptolemy was a step in astronomical progress； that of Copernicus was a revolution。 So； in 1789； there was struggle and progress； revolution there was none。 An examination of the reforms which were attempted proves this。
The nation； so long a victim of monarchical selfishness； thought to deliver itself for ever by declaring that it alone was sovereign。 But what was monarchy？ The sovereignty of one man。 What is democracy？ The sovereignty of the nation； or； rather； of the national majority。 But it is； in both cases； the sovereignty of man instead of the sovereignty of the law； the sovereignty of the will instead of the sovereignty of the reason； in one word； the passions instead of justice。 Undoubtedly； when a nation passes from the monarchical to the democratic state； there is progress； because in multiplying the sovereigns we increase the opportunities of the reason to substitute itself for the will； but in reality there is no revolution in the government； since the principle remains the same。 Now； we have the proof to…day that； with the most perfect democracy； we cannot be free。＇1＇
＇1＇ See De Tocqueville； 〃Democracy in the United States；〃 and Michel Chevalier； 〃Letters on North America。〃 Plutarch tells us； 〃Life of Pericles；〃 that in Athens honest people were obliged to conceal themselves while studying； fearing they would be regarded as aspirants for office。
Nor is that all。 The nation…king cannot exercise its sovereignty itself； it is obliged to delegate it to agents： this is constantly reiterated by those who seek to win its favor。 Be these agents five； ten； one hundred； or a thousand； of what consequence is the number； and what matters the name？ It is always the government of man； the rule of will and caprice。 I ask what this pretended revolution has revolutionized？
We know； too； how this sovereignty was exercised； first by the Convention； then by the Directory； afterwards confiscated by the Consul。 As for the Emperor； the strong man so much adored and mourned by the nation； he never wanted to be dependent on it； but； as if intending to set its sovereignty at defiance； he dared to demand its suffrage： that is； its abdication； the abdication of this inalienable sovereignty； and he obtained it。
But what is sovereignty？ It is； they say； the POWER TO MAKE LAW。＇1＇ Another absurdity； a relic of despotism。 The nation had long seen kings issuing their commands in this form： FOR SUCH IS OUR PLEASURE； it wished to taste in its turn the pleasure of making laws。 For fifty years it has brought them forth by myriads； always； be it understood； through the agency of representatives。 The play is far from ended。
＇1＇ 〃Sovereignty；〃 according to Toullier； 〃is human omnipotence。〃 A materialistic definition： if sovereignty is any thing； it is a RIGHT not a FORCE or a faculty。 And what is human omnipotence？
The definition of sovereignty was derived from the definition of the law。 The law； they said； is THE EXPRESSION OF THE WILL OF THE SOVEREIGN： then； under a monarchy； the law is the expression of the will of the king； in a republic； the law is the expression of the will of the people。 Aside from the difference in the number of wills； the two systems are exactly identical： both share the same error； namely； that the law is the expression of a will； it ought to be the expression of a fact。 Moreover they followed good leaders： they took the citizen of Geneva for their prophet； and the contrat social for their Koran。
Bias and prejudice are apparent in all the phrases of the new legislators。 The nation had suffered from a multitude of exclusions and privileges； its representatives issued the following declaration： ALL MEN ARE EQUAL BY NATURE AND BEFORE THE LAW； an ambiguous and redundant declaration。 MEN ARE EQUAL BY NATURE： does that mean that they are equal in size； beauty； talents； and virtue？ No； they meant； then； political and civil equality。 Then it would have been sufficient to have said： ALL MEN ARE EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW。
But what is equality before the law？ Neither the constitution of 1790； nor that of '93； nor the granted charter； nor the accepted charter； have defined it accurately。 All imply an inequality in fortune and station incompatible with even a shadow of equality in rights。 In this respect it may be said that all our constitutions have been faithful expressions of the popular will： I am going； to prove it。
Formerly the people were excluded from civil and military offices； it was considered a wonder when the following high… sounding article was inserted in the Declaration of Rights： 〃All citizens are equally eligible to office； free nations know no qualifications in their choice of officers save virtues and talents。〃
They certainl