History of Civilization in England, Vol. 2 of 3
by Henry Thomas Buckle · English · Gutenberg #44494 · 1,595,675 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of History of Civilization in England, Vol. 2 of 3
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: History of Civilization in England, Vol. 2 of 3
Author: Henry Thomas Buckle
Release date: December 28, 2013 [eBook #44494]
Most recently updated: October 23, 2024
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/44494
Credits: Produced by David Clarke, Jens Nordmann and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HISTORY OF CIVILIZATION IN ENGLAND, VOL. 2 OF 3 ***
HISTORY
OF
CIVILIZATION IN ENGLAND.
BY
HENRY THOMAS BUCKLE.
IN THREE VOLUMES.
VOL. II.
_NEW EDITION._
TORONTO:
ROSE-BELFORD PUBLISHING COMPANY,
60 YORK STREET.
1878.
ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
OUTLINE OF THE HISTORY OF THE FRENCH INTELLECT FROM THE MIDDLE OF
THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY TO THE ACCESSION TO POWER OF LOUIS XIV.
PAGE
Importance of the question, as to whether the historian should
begin with studying the normal or the abnormal condition of
society 1-3
Greater power of the church in France than in England 4
Hence in France during the sixteenth century everything was more
theological than in England 6-8
Hence, too, toleration was impossible in France 9-11
But at the end of the sixteenth century scepticism appeared in
France, and with it toleration began, as was seen in the Edict
of Nantes 11-15
The first sceptic was not Rabelais, but Montaigne 15-18
Continuation of the movement by Charron 18-21
Henry IV. encouraged the Protestants 23-24
And they were tolerated even by the queen-regent during the
minority of Louis XIII. 24-26
The most remarkable steps in favour of toleration were,
however, taken by Richelieu, who effectually humbled the
church 27-34
He supported the new secular scheme of government against the
old ecclesiastical scheme 34-42
His liberal treatment of the Protestants 42-46
They are deserted by their temporal leaders, and the management
of the party falls into the hands of the clergy 46-51
Hence the French Protestants, being headed by the clergy,
become more intolerant than the French Catholics, who are
headed by statesmen 51-55
Evidence of the illiberality of the French Protestants 55-72
They raise a civil war, which was a struggle of classes rather
than of creeds 73
Richelieu put down the rebellion, but still abstained from
persecuting the Protestants 73-76
This liberal policy on the part of the government was only part
of a much larger movement 76-77
Illustration of this from the philosophy of Descartes 77-92
Analogy between Descartes and Richelieu 92-93
The same anti-ecclesiastical spirit was exhibited by their
contemporaries 93-95
And by Mazarin 96-98
It was also seen in the wars of the Fronde 99-102
But notwithstanding all this, there was a great difference
between France and England; and the prevalence of the
protective spirit prevented the French from becoming free 102-107
CHAPTER II.
HISTORY OF THE PROTECTIVE SPIRIT, AND COMPARISON OF IT IN FRANCE AND
ENGLAND.
About the eleventh century the spirit of inquiry began to
weaken the church 108-110
Coinciding with this, the feudal system and an hereditary
aristocracy appeared 110-112
The nobles displace the clergy, and celibacy is opposed by the
principle of hereditary rank 112
In England the nobles were less powerful than in France 113-116
And were glad to ally themselves with the people against the
crown 116-118
Hence a spirit of popular independence unknown in France, where
the nobles were too powerful to need the help of the people 118-119
Effects of this difference between the two countries in the
fourteenth century 119-122
Centralization was in France the natural successor of feudality 122-126
This state contrasted with that of England 126-127
Power of the French nobles 128-131
Illustration from the history of chivalry 131-135
Another illustration from the vanity of the French and pride of
the English 135-137
Also from the practice of duelling 137
The pride of Englishmen encouraged the Reformation 138
Analogy between the Reformation and the revolutions of the
seventeenth century 138-139
Both were opposed by the clergy and nobles. Natural alliance
between these two classes 139-142
In the reign of Elizabeth both classes were weakened 143-146
James I. and Charles I. vainly attempted to restore their power 147
Chapter III.
THE ENERGY OF THE PROTECTIVE SPIRIT IN FRANCE EXPLAINS THE FAILURE OF
THE FRONDE. COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FRONDE AND THE CONTEMPORARY ENGLISH
REBELLION.
Difference between the Fronde and the great English rebellion 148-150
The English rebellion was a war of classes 150-159
But in France the energy of the protective spirit and the power
of the nobles made a war of classes impossible 160-162
Vanity and imbecility of the French nobles 162-170
As such men were the leaders of the Fronde, the rebellion
naturally failed 167-173
But the English rebellion succeeded because it was a democratic
movement headed by popular leaders 174-175
CHAPTER IV.
THE PROTECTIVE SPIRIT CARRIED BY LOUIS XIV. INTO LITERATURE. EXAMINATION
OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS ALLIANCE BETWEEN THE INTELLECTUAL CLASSES
AND THE GOVERNING CLASSES.
The protective spirit in France, having produced these
political evils, was carried into literature under Louis XIV.,
and caused an alliance between literature and government 176-177
Servility in the reign of Louis XIV. 177-181
Men of letters grateful to Louis XIV. 182
But his system of protecting literature is injurious 183-188
Its first effect was to stop the progress of science 188-192
Even in mechanical arts nothing was effected 192-194
Decline in physiology, in surgery, and in medicine 194-197
Also in zoology and in chemistry 197
Nor was anything done in botany 198-202
Intellectual decay under Louis XIV. was seen in every
department of thought, and was the natural consequence of
patronage 202-205
Illustrations from the history of French art 205-208
And from every branch of literature 208-210
Universal decline of France during the latter part of the reign
of Louis XIV. 210-212
CHAPTER V.
DEATH OF LOUIS XIV. REACTION AGAINST THE PROTECTIVE SPIRIT, AND
PREPARATIONS FOR THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.
English literature unknown in France in the reign of Louis XIV. 213-214
But began to be studied after his death, when the most eminent
Frenchmen visited England. This caused a junction of French and
English intellects 215-227
Admiration of England expressed by Frenchmen 228-229
Hence liberal opinions in France, which the government
attempted to stifle 229
Consequent persecution of literary men by the French government 230-242
Violence of the government 242-246
In France literature was the last resource of liberty 246-247
Reasons why literary men at first attacked the church and not
the government 247-253
Hence they were led to assail Christianity 254-258
But until the middle of the reign of Louis XV. the political
institutions of France might have been saved; after that period
all was over 258-259
CHAPTER VI.
STATE OF HISTORICAL LITERATURE IN FRANCE FROM THE END OF THE SIXTEENTH
TO THE END OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.
Historical literature in France before the end of the sixteenth
century 261-265
Improvement in the method of writing history late in the
sixteenth century 266-267
Still further progress early in the seventeenth century 268-270
Which became more marked in Mezeray's history in 1643 271-272
Retrograde movement under Louis XIV. 273-279
Illustration of this from the work of Audigier 279-282
And from that of Bossuet 282-291
Immense improvements introduced by Voltaire 292-313
His History of Charles XII. 292-295
His Age of Louis XIV. 296-297
His Morals, Manners, and Character of Nations 297-298
His views adopted by Mallet, Mably, Velly, Villaret, Duclos,
and Hénault 299-300
His habit of looking at epochs 301
A remark of his adopted by Constant 302
He advocated free trade 304
His anticipation of Malthus 304-305
His attack on the Middle Ages 305-306
And on the pedantic admirers of antiquity 306-308
He weakened the authority of mere scholars and theologians 308-309
Who had repeated the most childish absurdities respecting the
early history of Rome 309-310
In attacking which Voltaire anticipated Niebuhr 310-313
Ignorant prejudice against him in England 313
His vast labours were aided by Montesquieu 314
The works of Montesquieu, and value of his method 314-319
The discourses of Turgot, and their influence 320-321
All this hastened the advance of the French Revolution 321-322
CHAPTER VII.
PROXIMATE CAUSES OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION AFTER THE MIDDLE OF THE
EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.
Recapitulation of preceding views 323
Difference between certainty and precision 324-326
The intellect of France began to attack the state about 1750 326-327
Rise of the political economists 327-330
Influence of Rousseau 330-331
Just at the same time the government began to attack the church 332-334
And to favour religious toleration 334-336
Abolition of the Jesuits 336-346
Calvinism is democratic; Arminianism is aristocratic 339-342
Jansenism being allied to Calvinism, its revival in France
aided the democratic movement, and secured the overthrow of
the Jesuits, whose doctrines are Arminian 343-345
After the fall of the Jesuits the ruin of the French clergy was
inevitable 347-348
But was averted for a time by the most eminent Frenchmen
directing their hostility against the state rather than against
the church 349-351
Connexion between this movement and the rise of atheism 351-353
Same tendency exhibited in Helvétius 353-357
And in Condillac 357-360
The ablest Frenchmen concentrate their attention on the
external world 360-361
Effects of this on the sciences of heat, light, and electricit 361-363
Also on chemistry and geology 364-373
In England during the same period there was a dearth of great
thinkers 374-375
But in France immense impetus was given to zoology by Cuvier
and Bichat 375-376
Bichat's views respecting the tissues 377-421
Connexion between these views and subsequent discoveries 383-386
Relation between inventions, discoveries, and method; and
immense importance of Bichat's method 386-389
Bichat's work on life 390-395
Great and successful efforts made by the French in Botany 395-399
And in mineralogy by De Lisle and Haüy 399-403
Analogy between this and Pinel's work on insanity 403-404
All these vast results were part of the causes of the French
Revolution 405
Physical science is essentially democratic 406-410
The same democratic tendency was observable in changes of dress 410-412
And in the establishment of clubs 412-415
Influence of the American Rebellion 415-418
Summary of the causes of the French Revolution 418-420
General reflections 420-424
CHAPTER VIII.
OUTLINES OF THE HISTORY OF THE SPANISH INTELLECT FROM THE FIFTH TO THE
MIDDLE OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.
In the preceding Chapters four propositions have been
established 425-426
The truth of which may be further verified by studying the
history of Spain 426
In Spain, superstition is encouraged by physical phenomena 426-434
It was also encouraged by the great Arian war with France 434-439
And, subsequently, by the war with the Mohammedans 439-444
These three causes influenced the policy of Ferdinand and
Isabella 444-446
Continuation of the same policy by Charles V. and by Philip II. 446-453
Philip II., notwithstanding his repulsive qualities, was loved
by the nation 453-455
Their affection for him was the result of general causes,
which, during several centuries, have made the Spaniards the
most loyal people in Europe 455
Origin of Spanish loyalty, and evidence of it 455-461
Loyalty became united with superstition, and each strengthened
the other 461-462
In consequence of this union, great foreign conquests were
made, and a great military spirit was developed 461-465
But this sort of progress, depending too much upon individuals,
is necessarily unstable 465-466
The progress of England, on the other hand, depends upon the
ability of the nation, and therefore, continues, whether
individual rulers are skilful, or whether they are unskilful 466-467
In Spain, the ruling classes were supreme; the people counted
for nothing; and hence the grandeur of the country, which was
raised up by the able princes of the sixteenth century, was as
quickly pulled down by the weak princes of the seventeenth 467-472
The decay of Spain, in the seventeenth century, was connected
with the increasing influence of the clergy 472-483
The first use which the clergy made of their power was to expel
all the Moors 483-496
Effect of this expulsion in impoverishing Spain 497-499
Decline of manufactures, and of population, and increase of
poverty 499-511
In 1700, when affairs were at their worst, the Austrian dynasty
was succeeded by the Bourbon 513-514
Spain was now ruled by foreigners 514-520
Who endeavoured to improve the country by weakening the church 521-525
But the authority of the church had so enfeebled the national
intellect, that the people, immersed in ignorance, remained
inert 525-543
Government attempted to remedy this ignorance by calling in
foreign aid 534-545
The influence of foreigners in Spain was displayed in the
expulsion of the Jesuits, in 1767 545-546
And in the attacks made on the Inquisition 547-548
It was also displayed in the foreign policy of Spain 548-550
All this was promoted by the authority and high character of
Charles III. 552-554
But it was of no avail; because politicians can do nothing,
when the spirit of the country is against them 534-555
Still, Charles III. effected great improvements, from which, on
a superficial view, permanent benefit might have been expected 555-568
Summary of what was accomplished for Spain, by the government,
between the years 1700 and 1788 568-570
Inasmuch, however, as these ameliorations were opposed to the
habits of the national character, a reaction was inevitable 570-571
In 1788, Charles III. was succeeded by Charles IV., and the new
king, being a true Spaniard, the reaction began 571-573
In the nineteenth century, political reformers again
endeavoured to improve Spain 574
For the reasons already stated, their efforts were fruitless,
notwithstanding the early establishment in that country of
municipal privileges, and of popular representation 575-576
In this way, general causes always triumph over particular
actions 577-578
Those general causes predetermined the country to superstition,
and it was impossible for individuals to make head against them 578-583
Nothing can weaken superstition but knowledge 583
Such failures are the more observable, because Spain enjoys
immense natural advantages 583-585
And has possessed great patriots and great legislators 585
The Spaniards have, moreover, long been celebrated for honour,
courage, temperance, humanity, and religious sincerity 585-588
So far, however, as national progress is concerned, these noble
qualities are useless, while ignorance is so gross and so
general 588-592
This it is, which, isolating Spain from the rest of the
civilized world, keeps alive that spirit of superstition, that
reverence for antiquity, and that blind and servile loyalty,
which, as long as they last, will render improvement
impossible; and which must last until ignorance is removed 592-597
HISTORY OF CIVILIZATION IN ENGLAND.
CHAPTER I.
OUTLINE OF THE HISTORY OF THE FRENCH INTELLECT FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE
SIXTEENTH CENTURY TO THE ACCESSION TO POWER OF LOUIS XIV.
The consideration of these great changes in the English mind, has led me
into a digression, which, so far from being foreign to the design of
this Introduction, is absolutely necessary for a right understanding of
it. In this, as in many other respects, there is a marked analogy
between investigations concerning the structure of society and
investigations concerning the human body. Thus, it has been found, that
the best way of arriving at a theory of disease is by beginning with the
theory of health; and that the foundation of all sound pathology must be
first sought in an observation, not of the abnormal, but of the normal
functions of life. Just in the same way, it will, I believe, be found,
that the best method of arriving at great social truths, is by first
investigating those cases in which society has developed itself
according to its own laws, and in which the governing powers have least
opposed themselves to the spirit of their times.[1] It is on this
account that, in order to understand the position of France, I have
begun by examining the position of England. In order to understand the
way in which the diseases of the first country were aggravated by the
quackery of ignorant rulers, it was necessary to understand the way in
which the health of the second country was preserved by being subjected
to smaller interference, and allowed with greater liberty to continue
its natural march. With the light, therefore, which we have acquired by
a study of the normal condition of the English mind, we can, with the
greater ease, now apply our principles to that abnormal condition of
French society, by the operations of which, at the close of the
eighteenth century, some of the dearest interests of civilization were
imperilled.
[1] The question as to whether the study of normal phenomena should or
should not precede the study of abnormal ones, is of the greatest
importance; and a neglect of it has introduced confusion into every
work I have seen on general or comparative history. For this
preliminary being unsettled, there has been no recognized principle
of arrangement; and historians, instead of following a scientific
method suited to the actual exigencies of our knowledge, have
adopted an empirical method suited to their own exigencies; and
have given priority to different countries, sometimes according to
their size, sometimes according to their antiquity, sometimes
according to their geographical position, sometimes according to
their wealth, sometimes according to their religion, sometimes
according to the brilliancy of their literature, and sometimes
according to the facilities which the historian himself possessed
for collecting materials. All these are factitious considerations;
and, in a philosophic view, it is evident that precedence should be
given to countries by the historian solely in reference to the ease
with which their history can be generalized; following in this
respect the scientific plan of proceeding from the simple to the
complex. This leads us to the conclusion that, in the study of Man,
as in the study of Nature, the question of priority resolves itself
into a question of aberration; and that the more aberrant any
people have been, that is to say, the more they have been
interfered with, the lower they must be placed in an arrangement of
the history of various countries. Coleridge (_Lit. Remains_, vol.
i. p. 326, and elsewhere in his works) seems to suppose that the
order should be the reverse of what I have stated, and that the
laws both of mind and body can be generalized from pathological
data. Without wishing to express myself too positively in
opposition to so profound a thinker as Coleridge, I cannot help
saying that this is contradicted by an immense amount of evidence,
and, so far as I am aware, is supported by none. It is contradicted
by the fact, that those branches of inquiry which deal with
phenomena little affected by foreign causes, have been raised to
sciences sooner than those which deal with phenomena greatly
affected by foreign causes. The organic world, for example, is more
perturbed by the inorganic world, than the inorganic world is
perturbed by it. Hence we find that the inorganic sciences have
always been cultivated before the organic ones, and at the present
moment are far more advanced than they. In the same way, human
physiology is older than human pathology; and while the physiology
of the vegetable kingdom has been successfully prosecuted since the
latter half of the seventeenth century, the pathology of the
vegetable kingdom can scarcely be said to exist, since none of its
laws have been generalized, and no systematic researches, on a
large scale, have yet been made into the morbid anatomy of plants.
It appears, therefore, that different ages and different sciences
bear unconscious testimony to the uselessness of paying much
attention to the abnormal, until considerable progress has been
made in the study of the normal; and this conclusion might be
confirmed by innumerable authorities, who, differing from
Coleridge, hold that physiology is the basis of pathology, and that
the laws of disease are to be raised, not from the phenomena
presented in disease, but from those presented in health; in other
words, that pathology should be investigated deductively rather
than inductively, and that morbid anatomy and clinical observations
may verify the conclusions of science, but can never supply the
means of creating the science itself. On this extremely interesting
question, compare _Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire_, _Hist. des Anomalies de
l'Organisation_, vol. ii. pp. 9, 10, 127; _Bowman's Surgery_, in
_Encyclop. of the Medical Sciences_, p. 824; _Bichat_, _Anatomie
Générale_, vol. i. p. 20; _Cullen's Works_, vol. i. p. 424;
_Comte_, _Philos. Positive_, vol. iii. pp. 334, 335; _Robin et
Verdeil_, _Chimie Anatomique_, vol. i. p. 68; _Esquirol_, _Maladies
Mentales_, vol. i. p. 111; _Georget_, _de la Folie_, pp. 2, 391,
392; _Brodie's Pathology and Surgery_, p. 3; _Blainville_,
_Physiologie comparée_, vol. i. p. 20; _Feuchtersleben's Medical
Psychology_, p. 200; _Lawrence's Lectures on Man_, 1844, p. 45;
_Simon's Pathology_, p. 5.
Another confirmation of the accuracy of this view is, that
pathological investigations of the nervous system, numerous as they
have been, have effected scarcely anything; the reason evidently
being, that the preliminary knowledge of the normal state is not
sufficiently advanced. See _Noble on the Brain_, pp. 76-92, 337,
338; _Henry on the Nervous System_, in _Third Report of Brit.
Assoc._ p. 78; _Holland's Medical Notes_, p. 608; _Jones and
Sieveking's Patholog. Anat._ p. 211.
In France, a long train of events, which I shall hereafter relate, had,
from an early period, given to the clergy a share of power larger than
that which they possessed in England. The results of this were for a
time decidedly beneficial, inasmuch as the church restrained the
lawlessness of a barbarous age, and secured a refuge for the weak and
oppressed. But as the French advanced in knowledge, the spiritual
authority, which had done so much to curb their passions, began to press
heavily upon their genius, and impede its movements. That same
ecclesiastical power, which to an ignorant age is an unmixed benefit, is
to a more enlightened age a serious evil. The proof of this was soon
apparent. For when the Reformation broke out, the church had in England
been so weakened, that it fell almost at the first assault; its revenues
were seized by the crown,[2] and its offices, after being greatly
diminished both in authority and in wealth, were bestowed upon new men,
who, from the uncertainty of their tenure, and the novelty of their
doctrines, lacked that long-established prescription by which the claims
of the profession are mainly supported. This, as we have already seen,
was the beginning of an uninterrupted progress, in which, at every
successive step, the ecclesiastical spirit lost some of its influence.
In France, on the other hand, the clergy were so powerful, that they
were able to withstand the Reformation, and thus preserve for themselves
those exclusive privileges which their English brethren vainly attempted
to retain.
[2] A circumstance which Harris relates with evident delight, and goes
out of his way to mention it. _Lives of the Stuarts_, vol. iii. p.
300. On the amount of loss the church thus sustained, see
_Sinclair's Hist. of the Revenue_, vol. i. pp. 181-184, and
_Eccleston's English Antiquities_, p. 228.
This was the beginning of that second marked divergence between French
and English civilization,[3] which had its origin, indeed, at a much
earlier period, but which now first produced conspicuous results. Both
countries had, in their infancy, been greatly benefited by the church,
which always showed itself ready to protect the people against the
oppressions of the crown and the nobles.[4] But in both countries, as
society advanced, there arose a capacity for self-protection; and early
in the sixteenth, or probably even in the fifteenth century, it became
urgently necessary to diminish that spiritual authority, which, by
prejudging the opinions of men, has impeded the march of their
knowledge.[5] It is on this account that Protestantism, so far from
being, as its enemies have called it, an aberration arising from
accidental causes, was essentially a normal movement, and was the
legitimate expression of the wants of the European intellect. Indeed,
the Reformation owed its success, not to a desire of purifying the
church, but to a desire of lightening its pressure; and it may be
broadly stated, that it was adopted in every civilized country, except
in those where preceding events had increased the influence of the
ecclesiastical order, either among the people or among their rulers.
This was, unhappily, the case with France, where the clergy not only
triumphed over the Protestants, but appeared, for a time, to have gained
fresh authority by the defeat of such dangerous enemies.[6]
[3] The first divergence arose from the influence of the protective
spirit, as I shall endeavour to explain in the next chapter.
[4] On the obligations Europe is under to the Catholic clergy, see some
liberal and very just remarks in _Kemble's Saxons in England_, vol.
ii. pp. 374, 375; and in _Guizot's Civilisation en France_. See
also _Neander's Hist. of the Church_, vol. iii. pp. 199-206,
255-257, vol. v. p. 138, vol. vi. pp. 406, 407; _Palgrave's
Anglo-Saxon Commonwealth_, vol. i. p. 655; _Lingard's Hist. of
England_, vol. ii. p. 44; _Klimrath_, _Travaux sur l'Hist. du
droit_, vol. i. p. 394; _Carwithen's Hist. of the Church of
England_, vol. i. p. 157.
[5] The way in which this acted is concisely stated by Tennemann: 'Wenn
sich nun auch ein freierer Geist der Forschung regte, so fand er
sich gleich durch zwei Grundsätze, welche aus jenem Supremat der
Theologie flossen, beengt und gehemmt. Der erste war: die
menschliche Vernunft kann nicht über die Offenbarung
hinausgehen.... Der zweite: die Vernunft kann nichts als wahr
erkennen, was dem Inhalte der Offenbarung widerspricht, und nichts
für falsch erkennen, was derselben angemessen ist,--folgte aus dem
ersten.' _Gesch. der Philos._ vol. viii. part i. p. 8.
[6] As to the influence of the Reformation generally, in increasing the
power of the Catholic clergy, see M. Ranke's important work on the
_History of the Popes_; and as to the result in France, see
_Monteil_, _Hist. des divers Etats_, vol. v. pp. 233-235. Corero,
who was ambassador in France in 1569, writes, 'Il papa può dire a
mio giudizio, d'aver in questi romori piuttosto guadagnato che
perduto, perciochè tanta era la licenza del vivere, secondo che ho
inteso, prima che quel regno si dividesse in due parti, era tanta
poca la devozione che avevano in Roma e in quei che vi abitavano,
che il papa era più considerato come principe grande in Italia, che
come capo della chiesa e pastore universale. Ma scoperti che si
furono gli ugonotti, cominciarono i cattolici a riverire il suo
nome, e riconoscerlo per vero vicario di Cristo, confirmandosi
tanto più in opinione di doverlo tener per tale, quanto più lo
sentivano sprezzare e negare da essi ugonotti.' _Relations des
Ambassadeurs Vénitiens_, vol. ii. p. 162. This interesting passage
is one of many proofs that the immediate advantages derived from
the Reformation have been overrated; though the remote advantages
were undoubtedly immense.
The consequence of all this was, that in France, every thing assumed a
more theological aspect than in England. In our country, the
ecclesiastical spirit had, by the middle of the sixteenth century,
become so feeble, that even intelligent foreigners were struck by the
peculiarity.[7] The same nation, which, during the Crusades, had
sacrificed innumerable lives in the hope of planting the Christian
standard in the heart of Asia,[8] was now almost indifferent to the
religion even of its own sovereign. Henry VIII., by his sole will,
regulated the national creed, and fixed the formularies of the church,
which, if the people had been in earnest, he could not possibly have
done; for he had no means of compelling submission; he had no standing
army; and even his personal guards were so scanty, that at any moment
they could have been destroyed by a rising of the warlike apprentices of
London.[9] After his death, there came Edward, who, as a Protestant
king, undid the work of his father; and, a few years later, there came
Mary, who, as a Popish queen, undid the work of her brother; while she,
in her turn, was succeeded by Elizabeth, under whom another great
alteration was effected in the established faith.[10] Such was the
indifference of the people, that these vast changes were accompanied
without any serious risk.[11] In France, on the other hand, at the mere
name of religion, thousands of men were ready for the field. In England,
our civil wars have all been secular; they have been waged, either for a
change of dynasty, or for an increase of liberty. But those far more
horrible wars, by which, in the sixteenth century, France was desolated,
were conducted in the name of Christianity, and even the political
struggles of the great families were merged in a deadly contest between
Catholics and Protestants.[12]
[7] The indifference of the English to theological disputes, and the
facility with which they changed their religion, caused many
foreigners to censure their fickleness. See, for instance, _Essais
de Montaigne_, livre ii. chap. xii. p. 365. Perlin, who travelled
in England in the middle of the sixteenth century, says, 'The
people are reprobates, and thorough enemies to good manners and
letters; for they don't know whether they belong to God or the
devil, which St. Paul has reprehended in many people, saying, Be
not transported with divers sorts of winds, but be constant and
steady to your belief.' _Antiquarian Repertory_, vol. iv. p. 511,
4to, 1809. See also the remarks of Michele in 1557, and of Crespet
in 1590; _Ellis's Original Letters_, 2nd series, vol. ii. p. 239;
_Hallam's Constitutional History_, vol. i. p. 102; _Southey's
Commonplace Book_, 3rd series, p. 408.
[8] An historian of the thirteenth century strikingly expresses the
theological feelings of the English crusaders, and the complete
subordination of the political ones: 'Indignum quippe judicabant
animarum suarum salutem omittere, et obsequium c[oe]lestis Regis,
clientelæ regis alicujus terreni postponere; constituerunt igitur
terminum, videlicet festum nativitatis beati Johannis Baptistæ.'
_Matthæi Paris Historia Major_, p. 671. It is said, that the first
tax ever imposed in England on personal property was in 1166, and
was for the purpose of crusading. _Sinclair's Hist. of the
Revenue_, vol. i. p. 88: 'It would not probably have been easily
submitted to, had it not been appropriated for so popular a
purpose.'
[9] Henry VIII. had, at one time, fifty horse-guards, but they being
expensive, were soon given up; and his only protection consisted of
'the yeomen of the guard, fifty in number, and the common servants
of the king's household.' _Hallam's Const. Hist._ vol. i. p. 46.
These 'yeomen of the guard were raised by Henry VII. in 1485.'
_Grose's Military Antiquities_, vol. i. p. 167. Compare _Turner's
Hist. of England_, vol. vii. p. 54; and _Lingard's Hist. of
England_, vol. iii. p. 298.
[10] Locke, in his first Letter on Toleration, has made some pungent,
and, I should suppose, very offensive, observations on these rapid
changes. _Locke's Works_, vol. v. p. 27.
[11] But, although Mary easily effected a change of religion, the
anti-ecclesiastical spirit was far too strong to allow her to
restore to the church its property. 'In Mary's reign, accordingly,
her parliament, so obsequious in all matters of religion, adhered
with a firm grasp to the possession of church-lands.' _Hallam's
Const. Hist._ vol. i. p. 77. See also _Short's Hist. of the Church
of England_, p. 213; _Lingard's Hist. of England_, vol. iv. pp.
339, 340; _Butler's Mem. of the Catholics_, vol. i. p. 253; and
_Carwithen's Hist. of the Church of England_, vol. i. p. 346.
[12] 'Quand éclata la guerre des opinions religieuses, les antiques
rivalités des barons se transformèrent en haîne du prêche ou de la
messe.' _Capefigue_, _Hist. de la Réforme et de la Ligue_, vol.
iv. p. 32. Compare _Duplessis Mornay_, _Mém. et Correspond._, vol.
ii. pp. 422, 563; and _Boullier_, _Maison Militaire des Rois de
France_, p. 25, 'des querelles d'autant plus vives, qu'elles
avoient la religion pour base.'
The effect this difference produced on the intellect of the two
countries is very obvious. The English, concentrating their abilities
upon great secular matters, had, by the close of the sixteenth century,
produced a literature which never can perish. But the French, down to
that period, had not put forth a single work, the destruction of which
would now be a loss to Europe. What makes this contrast the more
remarkable is, that in France the civilization, such as it was, had a
longer standing; the material resources of the country had been earlier
developed; its geographical position made it the centre of European
thought;[13] and it had possessed a literature at a time when our
ancestors were a mere tribe of wild and ignorant barbarians.
[13] The intellectual advantages of France, arising from its position
between Italy, Germany, and England, are very fairly stated by M.
Lerminier (_Philosophie du Droit_, vol. i. p. 9).
The simple fact is, that this is one of those innumerable instances
which teach us that no country can rise to eminence so long as the
ecclesiastical power possesses much authority. For, the predominance of
the spiritual classes is necessarily accompanied by a corresponding
predominance of the topics in which those classes delight. Whenever the
ecclesiastical profession is very influential, ecclesiastical literature
will be very abundant, and what is called profane literature will be
very scanty. Hence it occurred, that the minds of the French, being
almost entirely occupied with religious disputes, had no leisure for
those great inquiries into which we in England were beginning to
enter;[14] and there was, as we shall presently see, an interval of a
whole generation between the progress of the French and English
intellects, simply because there was about the same interval between the
progress of their scepticism. The theological literature, indeed,
rapidly increased;[15] but it was not until the seventeenth century that
France produced that great secular literature, the counterpart of which
was to be found in England before the sixteenth century had come to a
close.
[14] Just in the same way, the religious disputes in Alexandria injured
the interests of knowledge. See the instructive remarks of M.
Matter (_Hist. de l'Ecole d'Alexandrie_, vol. ii. p. 131).
[15] _Monteil_, _Hist. des divers Etats_, vol. vi. p. 136. Indeed, the
theological spirit seized the theatre, and the different
sectarians ridiculed each other's principles on the stage. See a
curious passage at p. 182 of the same learned work.
Such was, in France, the natural consequence of the power of the church
being prolonged beyond the period which the exigencies of society
required. But while this was the intellectual result, the moral and
physical results were still more serious. While the minds of men were
thus heated by religious strife, it would have been idle to expect any
of those maxims of charity to which theological faction is always a
stranger. While the Protestants were murdering the Catholics,[16] and
the Catholics murdering the Protestants, it was hardly likely that
either sect should feel tolerance for the opinions of its enemy.[17]
During the sixteenth century, treaties were occasionally made between
the two parties; but they were only made to be immediately broken;[18]
and, with the single exception of l'Hôpital, the bare idea of toleration
does not seem to have entered the head of any statesman of the age. It
was recommended by him;[19] but neither his splendid abilities, nor his
unblemished integrity, could make head against the prevailing
prejudices, and he eventually retired into private life without
effecting any of his noble schemes.[20]
[16] The crimes of the French Protestants, though hardly noticed in
_Felice's History of the Protestants of France_, pp. 138-143, were
as revolting as those of the Catholics, and quite as numerous
relatively to the numbers and power of the two parties. Compare
_Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. xviii. pp. 516, 517, with
_Capefigue_, _Hist. de la Réforme_, vol. ii. p. 173, vol. vi. p.
54; and _Smedley_, _Hist. of the Reformed Religion in France_,
vol. i. pp. 199, 200, 237.
[17] In 1569 Corero writes: 'Ritrovai quel regno, certo, posto in
grandissima confusione; perchè, stante quella divisione di
religione (convertita quasi in due fazioni e inimicizie
particolari), era causa ch' ognuno, senza che amicizia o parentela
potesse aver luoco, stava con l'orecchie attente; e pieno
disospetto ascoltava da che parte nasceva qualche romore,' _Relat.
des Ambassad. Vénitiens_, vol. ii. p. 106. He emphatically adds,
'Temevano gl' ugonotti, temevano li cattolici, tenieva il
prencipe, temevano li sudditi.' See also, on this horrible state
of opinions, _Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. xviii. pp. 21,
22, 118-120, 296, 430. On both sides, the grossest calumnies were
propagated and believed; and one of the charges brought against
Catherine de Medici was, that she caused the Cesarean operation to
be performed on the wives of Protestants, in order that no new
heretics might be born. _Sprengel_, _Hist. de la Médecine_, vol.
vii. p. 294.
[18] _Mably_, _Observations sur l'Hist. de France_, vol. iii. p. 149. In
the reign of Charles IX. alone, there were no less than five of
these religious wars, each of which was concluded by a treaty. See
_Flassan_, _Hist. de la Diplomatie Française_, vol. ii. p. 69.
[19] For which l'Hôpital was accused of atheism: 'Homo doctus, sed verus
atheus.' _Dict. Philos._ article _Athéisme_, in _[OE]uvres de
Voltaire_, vol. xxxvii. pp. 181, 182.
[20] I have not been able to meet with any good life of this great man:
that by Charles Butler is very superficial, and so is that by
Bernardi, in _Biog. Univ._ vol. xxiv. pp. 412-424. My own
information respecting l'Hôpital is from _Sismondi_, _Hist. des
Français_, vol. xviii. pp. 431-436; _Capefigue_, _Hist. de la
Réforme_, vol. ii. pp. 135-137, 168-170; _De Thou_, _Hist. Univ._
vol. iii. pp. 519-523, vol. iv. pp. 2-8, 152-159, vol. v. pp.
180-182, 520, 521, 535, vol. vi. pp. 703, 704; _Sully_,
_[OE]conomies Royales_, vol. i. p. 234. Duvernet (_Hist. de la
Sorbonne_, vol. i. pp. 215-218) is unsatisfactory, though fully
recognizing his merit.
Indeed, in the leading events of this period of French history, the
predominance of the theological spirit was painfully shown. It was shown
in the universal determination to subordinate political acts to
religious opinions.[21] It was shown in the conspiracy of Amboise, and
in the conference of Poissy; and still more was it shown in those
revolting crimes so natural to superstition, the massacres of Vassy and
of St. Bartholomew, the murder of Guise by Poltrot, and of Henry III. by
Clement. These were the legitimate results of the spirit of religious
bigotry. They were the results of that accursed spirit, which, whenever
it has had the power, has punished even to the death those who dared to
differ from it; and which, now that the power has passed away, still
continues to dogmatize on the most mysterious subjects, tamper with the
most sacred principles of the human heart, and darken with its miserable
superstitions those sublime questions that no one should rudely touch,
because they are for each according to the measure of his own soul,
because they lie in that unknown tract which separates the Finite from
the Infinite, and because they are as a secret and individual covenant
between Man and his God.
[21] 'Ce fut alors que la nation ne prit conseil que de son fanatisme.
Les esprits, de jour en jour plus échauffés, ne virent plus
d'autre objet que celui de la religion, et par piété se firent les
injures les plus atroces.' _Mably_, _Observations sur l'Hist. de
France_, vol. iii. p. 145.
How long these sad days[22] would, in the ordinary course of affairs,
have been prolonged in France, is a question which we now perhaps have
no means of answering; though there is no doubt that the progress even
of empirical knowledge must, according to the process already pointed
out, have eventually sufficed to rescue so great a country from her
degraded position. Fortunately, however, there now took place what we
must be content to call an accident, but which was the beginning of a
most important change. In the year 1589, Henry IV. ascended the throne
of France. This great prince, who was far superior to any of the French
sovereigns of the sixteenth century,[23] made small account of those
theological disputes which his predecessors had thought to be of
paramount importance. Before him, the kings of France, animated by the
piety natural to the guardians of the church, had exerted all their
authority to uphold the interests of the sacred profession. Francis I.
said, that if his right hand were a heretic, he would cut it off.[24]
Henry II., whose zeal was still greater,[25] ordered the judges to
proceed against the Protestants, and publicly declared that he would
'make the extirpation of the heretics his principal business.'[26]
Charles IX., on the celebrated day of St. Bartholomew, attempted to
relieve the church by destroying them at a single blow. Henry III.
promised to 'oppose heresy even at the risk of his life;' for he said,
'he could not find a prouder grave than amidst the ruins of heresy.'[27]
[22] The 19th and 20th volumes of _Sismondi's Histoire des Français_
contain painful evidence of the internal condition of France
before the accession of Henry IV. Indeed, as Sismondi says (vol.
xx. pp. 11-16), it seemed at one time as if the only prospect was
a relapse into feudalism. See also _Monteil_, _Hist. des divers
Etats_, vol. v. pp. 242-249: 'plus de trois cent mille maisons
détruites.' De Thou, in the memoirs of his own life, says, 'Les
loix furent méprisées, et l'honneur de la France fut presque
anéanti ... et sous le voile de la religion, on ne respiroit que
la haîne, la vengeance, le massacre et l'incendie,' _Mém. de la
Vie_, in _Histoire Univ._ vol. i. p. 120; and the same writer, in
his great history, gives almost innumerable instances of the
crimes and persecutions constantly occurring. See, for some of the
most striking cases, vol. ii. p. 383, vol. iv. pp. 378, 380, 387,
495, 496, 539, vol. v. pp. 189, 518, 561, 647, vol. vi. pp. 421,
422, 424, 426, 427, 430, 469. Compare _Duplessis_, _Mém. et
Correspond._ vol. ii. pp. 41, 42, 322, 335, 611, 612, vol. iii.
pp. 344, 445, vol. iv. pp. 112-114; _Benoist_, _Hist. de l'Edit de
Nantes_, vol. i. pp. 307, 308; _Duvernet_, _Hist. de la Sorbonne_,
vol. i. p. 217.
[23] This, indeed, is not saying much; and far higher praise might be
justly bestowed. As to his domestic policy, there can be only one
opinion; and M. Flassan speaks in the most favourable terms of his
management of foreign affairs. _Flassan_, _Hist. de la Diplomatie
Franç._ vol. ii. pp. 191, 192, 294-297, vol. iii. p. 243. And see,
to the same effect, the testimony of M. Capefigue, an unfriendly
judge. _Hist. de la Réforme_, vol. vii. p. xiv. vol. viii. p. 156.
Fontenay Mareuil, who was a contemporary of Henry IV., though he
wrote many years after the king was murdered, says, 'Ce grand roy,
qui estoit en plus de considération dans le monde que pas un de
ses prédécesseurs n'avoit esté depuis Charlesmagne.' _Mém. de
Fontenay_, vol. i. p. 46. Duplessis Mornay calls him 'le plus
grand roy que la chrestienté ait porté depuis cinq cens ans;' and
Sully pronounces him to be 'le plus grand de nos rois.' _Duplessis
Mornay_, _Mém. et Correspond._ vol. xi. pp. 30, 77, 131; _Sully_,
_[OE]conomies Royales_, vol. vii. p. 15. Compare vol. vi. pp. 397,
398, vol. ix. pp. 35, 242, with some sensible remarks in _Mém. de
Genlis_, Paris, 1825, vol. ix. p. 299.
[24] So it is generally related: but there is a slightly different
version of this orthodox declaration in _Smedley's Hist. of the
Reformation in France_, vol. i. p. 30. Compare _Maclaine's note_
in _Mosheim's Eccles. Hist._ vol. ii. p. 24, with _Sismondi_,
_Hist. des Français_, vol. xvi. pp. 453, 454, and _Relat. des
Ambassad. Vénitiens_, vol. i. p. 50, vol. ii. p. 48. It was also
Francis I. who advised Charles V. to expel all the Mohammedans
from Spain, _Llorente_, _Hist. de l'Inquisition_, vol. i. p. 429.
[25] The historian of the French Protestants says, in 1548, 'le nouveau
roi Henry II. fut encore plus rigoureux que son père.' _Benoist_,
_Hist. de l'Edit de Nantes_, vol. i. p. 12.
[26] M. Ranke (_Civil Wars in France_, vol. i. pp. 240, 241) says, that
he issued a circular 'addressed to the parliaments and to the
judicial tribunals, in which they were urged to proceed against
the Lutherans with the greatest severity, and the judges informed
that they would be held responsible, should they neglect these
orders; and in which he declared plainly, that as soon as the
peace with Spain was concluded, he was determined to make the
extirpation of the heretics his principal business.' See also, on
Henry II., in connexion with the Protestants, _Mably_, _Observ.
sur l'Hist. de France_, vol. iii. pp. 133, 134; _De Thou_, _Hist.
Univ._ vol. i. pp. 334, 335, 387, vol. ii. p. 640, vol. iii. pp.
365, 366; _Felice's Hist. of the French Protestants_, p. 58.
[27] He said this to the Estates of Blois in 1588. _Ranke's Civil Wars
in France_, vol. ii. p. 202. Compare his edict, in 1585, in
_Capefigue_, _Hist. de la Réforme_, vol. iv. pp. 244, 245, and his
speech in vol. v. p. 122; and see _Benoist_, _Hist. de l'Edit de
Nantes_, vol. i. p. 328; _Duplessis Mornay_, _Mém. et Corresp._
vol. i. p. 110; _De Thou_, _Hist. Univ._ vol. i. p. 250, vol.
viii. p. 651, vol. x, pp. 294, 589, 674, 675.
These were the opinions expressed, in the sixteenth century, by the
heads of the oldest monarchy in Europe.[28] But with such feelings, the
powerful intellect of Henry IV. had not the slightest sympathy. To suit
the shifting politics of his age, he had already changed his religion
twice; and he did not hesitate to change it a third time,[29] when he
found that by doing so he could ensure tranquillity to his country. As
he had displayed such indifference about his own creed, he could not
with decency show much bigotry about the creed of his subjects.[30] We
find, accordingly, that he was the author of the first public act of
toleration which any government promulgated in France since Christianity
had been the religion of the country. Only five years after he had
solemnly abjured Protestantism, he published the celebrated Edict of
Nantes,[31] by which, for the first time, a Catholic government granted
to heretics a fair share of civil and religious rights. This was,
unquestionably, the most important event that had yet occurred in the
history of French civilization.[32] If it is considered by itself, it is
merely an evidence of the enlightened principles of the king; but when
we look at its general success, and at the cessation of religious war
which followed it, we cannot fail to perceive that it was part of a vast
movement, in which the people themselves participated. Those who
recognize the truth of the principles I have laboured to establish, will
expect that this great step towards religious liberty was accompanied by
that spirit of scepticism, in the absence of which toleration has
always been unknown. And that this was actually the case, may be easily
proved by an examination of the transitionary state which France began
to enter towards the end of the sixteenth century.
[28] With what zeal these opinions were enforced, appears, besides many
other authorities, from Marino Cavalli, who writes in 1546, 'Li
maestri di Sorbona hanno autorità estrema di castigare li eretici,
il che fanno con il fuoco, brustolandoli vivi a poco a poco.'
_Relat. des Ambassad. Vénitiens_, vol. i. 262; and see vol. ii.
p. 24.
[29] Indeed, Clement VIII. was afterwards apprehensive of a fourth
apostasy: 'Er meinte noch immer, Heinrich IV. werde zuletzt
vielleicht wieder zum Protestantismus zurückkehren, wie er es
schon einmal gethan.' _Ranke_, _die Päpste_, vol. ii. p. 246. M.
Ranke, from his great knowledge of Italian manuscripts, has thrown
more light on these transactions than the French historians have
been able to do.
[30] On his conversion, the character of which was as obvious then as it
is now, compare _Duplessis Mornay_, _Mém. et Correspond._ vol. i.
p. 257, with _Sully_, _[OE]conomies Royales_, vol. ii. p. 126. See
also _Howell's Letters_, book i. p. 42; and a letter from Sir H.
Wotton in 1593, printed in _Reliquiæ Wottonianæ_, p. 711. See also
_Ranke_, _Civil Wars in France_, vol. ii. pp. 257, 355;
_Capefigue_, _Hist. de la Réforme_, vol. vi. pp. 305, 358.
[31] The edict of Nantes was in 1598; the abjuration in 1593.
_Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. xxi. pp. 202, 486. But in
1590 it was intimated to the pope as probable, if not certain,
that Henry would 'in den Schooss der katholischen Kirche
zurückkehren.' _Ranke_, _die Päpste_, vol. ii. p. 210.
[32] Of this edict, Sismondi says, 'Aucune époque dans l'histoire de
France ne marque mieux peut-être la fin d'un monde ancien, le
commencement d'un monde nouveau.' _Hist. des Français_, vol. xxi.
p. 489.
The writings of Rabelais are often considered to afford the first
instance of religious scepticism in the French language.[33] But, after
a tolerably intimate acquaintance with the works of this remarkable man,
I have found nothing to justify such an opinion. He certainly treats the
clergy with great disrespect, and takes every opportunity of covering
them with ridicule.[34] His attacks, however, are always made upon their
personal vices, and not upon that narrow and intolerant spirit to which
those vices were chiefly to be ascribed. In not a single instance does
he show any thing like consistent scepticism;[35] nor does he appear to
be aware that the disgraceful lives of the French clergy were but the
inevitable consequence of a system, which, corrupt as it was, still
possessed every appearance of strength and vitality. Indeed, the immense
popularity which he enjoyed is, almost of itself, a decisive
consideration; since no one, who is well informed as to the condition of
the French early in the sixteenth century, will believe it possible that
a people, so sunk in superstition, should delight in a writer by whom
superstition is constantly attacked.
But the extension of experience, and the consequent increase of
knowledge, were preparing the way for a great change in the French
intellect. The process, which had just taken place in England, was now
beginning to take place in France; and in both countries the order of
events was precisely the same. The spirit of doubt, hitherto confined to
an occasional solitary thinker, gradually assumed a bolder form: first
it found a vent in the national literature, and then it influenced the
conduct of practical statesmen. That there was, in France, an intimate
connexion between scepticism and toleration, is proved, not only by
those general arguments which make us infer that such connexion must
always exist, but also by the circumstance, that only a few years before
the promulgation of the Edict of Nantes, there appeared the first
systematic sceptic who wrote in the French language. The Essays of
Montaigne were published in 1588,[36] and form an epoch, not only in the
literature, but also in the civilization, of France. Putting aside
personal peculiarities, which have less weight than is commonly
supposed, it will be found that the difference between Rabelais and
Montaigne is a measure of the difference between 1545[37] and 1588, and
that it, in some degree, corresponds with the relation I have indicated
between Jewel and Hooker, and between Hooker and Chillingworth. For, the
law which governs all these relations is the law of a progressive
scepticism. What Rabelais was to the supporters of theology, that was
Montaigne to the theology itself. The writings of Rabelais were only
directed against the clergy; but the writings of Montaigne were directed
against the system of which the clergy were the offspring.[38] Under the
guise of a mere man of the world, expressing natural thoughts in common
language, Montaigne concealed a spirit of lofty and audacious
inquiry.[39] Although he lacked that comprehensiveness which is the
highest form of genius, he possessed other qualities essential to a
great mind. He was very cautious, and yet he was very bold. He was
cautious, since he would not believe strange things because they had
been handed down by his forefathers; and he was bold, since he was
undaunted by the reproaches with which the ignorant, who love to
dogmatize, always cover those whose knowledge makes them ready to
doubt.[40] These peculiarities would, in any age, have made Montaigne a
useful man: in the sixteenth century they made him an important one. At
the same time, his easy and amusing style[41] increased the circulation
of his works, and thus contributed to popularize those opinions which he
ventured to recommend for general adoption.
[33] On Rabelais, as the supposed founder of French scepticism, compare
_Lavallée_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. ii. p. 306; _Stephen's
Lectures on the History of France_, vol. ii. p. 242; _Sismondi_,
_Hist. des Français_, vol. xvi. p. 376.
[34] Particularly the monks. See, among numerous other instances, vol.
i. pp. 278, 282, vol. ii. pp. 284, 285, of _[OE]uvres de
Rabelais_, edit. Amsterdam, 1725. However, the high dignitaries of
the church are not spared; for he says that Gargantua 'se morvoit
en archidiacre,' vol. i. p. 132; and on two occasions (vol. iii.
p. 65, vol. iv. pp. 199, 200) he makes a very indecent allusion to
the pope. In vol. i. pp. 260, 261, he satirically notices the way
in which the services of the church were performed: 'Dont luy dist
le moyne: Je ne dors jamais à mon aise, sinon quand je suis au
sermon, ou quand je prie Dieu.'
[35] His joke on the strength of Samson (_[OE]uvres de Rabelais_, vol.
ii. pp. 29, 30), and his ridicule of one of the Mosaic laws (vol.
iii. p. 34), are so unconnected with other parts of his work, as
to have no appearance of belonging to a general scheme. The
commentators, who find a hidden meaning in every author they
annotate, have represented Rabelais as aiming at the highest
objects, and seeking to effect the most extensive social and
religious reforms. This I greatly doubt, at all events I have seen
no proof of it; and I cannot help thinking that Rabelais owes a
large share of his reputation to the obscurity of his language. On
the other side of the question, and in favour of his
comprehensiveness, see a bold passage in _Coleridge's Lit.
Remains_, vol. i. pp. 138, 139.
[36] The two first books in 1580; the third in 1588, with additions to
the first two. See _Niceron_, _Mém. pour servir à l'Hist. des
Hommes illustres_, vol. xvi. p. 210, Paris, 1731.
[37] The first impression of the Pantagruel of Rabelais has no date on
the title-page; but it is known that the third book was printed in
1545, and the fourth book in 1546. See _Brunet_, _Manuel du
Libraire_, vol. iv. pp. 4-6, Paris, 1843. The statement in _Biog.
Univ._ vol. xxxvi. pp. 482, 483, is rather confused.
[38] Mr. Hallam (_Lit. of Europe_, vol. ii. p. 29) says, that his
scepticism 'is not displayed in religion.' But if we use the word
'religion' in its ordinary sense, as connected with dogma, it is
evident, from Montaigne's language, that he was a sceptic, and an
unflinching one too. Indeed, he goes so far as to say that all
religious opinions are the result of custom: 'Comme de vray nous
n'avons aultre mire de la vérité et de la raison, que l'exemple et
idée des opinions et usances du païs où nous sommes: _là est
tousiours la parfaicte religion_, la parfaicte police, parfaict et
accomply usage de toutes choses.' _Essais de Montaigne_, p. 121,
livre i. chap. xxx. As a natural consequence, he lays down that
religious error is not criminal, p. 53; compare p. 28. See also
how he notices the usurpations of the theological spirit, pp. 116,
508, 528. The fact seems to be, that Montaigne, while recognizing
abstractedly the existence of religious truths, doubted our
capacity for knowing them; that is to say, he doubted if, out of
the immense number of religious opinions, there were any means of
ascertaining which were accurate. His observations on miracles
(pp. 541, 653, 654, 675) illustrate the character of his mind; and
what he says on prophetic visions is quoted and confirmed by
Pinel, in his profound work _Aliénation Mentale_, p. 256. Compare
_Maury_, _Légendes Pieuses_, p. 268 note.
[39] His friend, the celebrated De Thou, calls him 'homme franc, ennemi
de toute contrainte.' _Mémoires_, in _De Thou_, _Hist. Univ._ vol.
i. p. 59: see also vol. xi. p. 590. And M. Lamartine classes him
with Montesquieu, as 'ces deux grands républicains de la pensée
française.' _Hist. des Girondins_, vol. i. p. 174.
[40] He says (_Essais_, p. 97), 'Ce n'est pas à l'adventure sans raison
que nous attribuons à simplesse et ignorance la facilité de croire
et de se laisser persuader.' Compare two striking passages, pp.
199 and 685. Nothing of this sort had ever appeared before in the
French language.
[41] Dugald Stewart, whose turn of mind was very different from that of
Montaigne, calls him 'this most amusing author.' _Stewart's
Philos. of the Mind_, vol. i. p. 468. But Rousseau, in every
respect a more competent judge, enthusiastically praises 'la
naïveté, la grâce et l'énergie de son style inimitable.' _Musset
Pathay_, _Vie de Rousseau_, vol. i. p. 185. Compare _Lettres de
Sévigné_, vol. iii. p. 491, edit. Paris, 1843, and _Lettres de
Dudeffand à Walpole_, vol. i. p. 94.
This, then, is the first open declaration of that scepticism, which,
towards the end of the sixteenth century, publicly appeared in
France.[42] During nearly three generations, it continued its course
with a constantly increasing activity, and developed itself in a manner
similar to that which took place in England. It will not be necessary to
follow all the steps of this great process; but I will endeavour to
trace those which, by their prominence, seem to be the most important.
[42] 'Mais celui qui a répandu et popularisé en France le scepticisme,
c'est Montaigne.' _Cousin_, _Hist. de la Philos._, II. série, vol.
ii. pp. 288, 289. 'Die erste Regung des skeptischen Geistes finden
wir in den Versuchen des Michael von Montaigne.' _Tennemann_,
_Gesch. der Philos._ vol. ix. p. 443. On the immense influence of
Montaigne, compare _Tennemann_, vol. ix. p. 458; _Monteil_,
_Divers Etats_, vol. v. pp. 263-265; _Sorel_, _Bibliothèque
Françoise_, pp. 80-91; _Le Long_, _Bibliothèque Historique_,
vol. iv. p. 527.
A few years after the appearance of the Essays of Montaigne, there was
published in France a work, which though now little read, possessed in
the seventeenth century a reputation of the highest order. This was the
celebrated _Treatise on Wisdom_, by Charron, in which we find, for the
first time, an attempt made in a modern language to construct a system
of morals without the aid of theology.[43] What rendered this book, in
some respects, even more formidable than Montaigne's, was the air of
gravity with which it was written. Charron was evidently deeply
impressed with the importance of the task he had undertaken, and he is
honourably distinguished from his contemporaries, by a remarkable purity
both of language and of sentiment. His work is almost the only one of
that age in which nothing can be found to offend the chastest ears.
Although he borrowed from Montaigne innumerable illustrations,[44] he
has carefully omitted those indecencies into which that otherwise
charming writer was often betrayed. Besides this, there is about the
work of Charron a systematic completeness which never fails to attract
attention. In originality, he was, in some respects, inferior to
Montaigne; but he had the advantage of coming after him, and there can
be no doubt that he rose to an elevation which, to Montaigne, would
have been inaccessible. Taking his stand, as it were, on the summit of
knowledge, he boldly attempts to enumerate the elements of wisdom, and
the conditions under which those elements will work. In the scheme which
he thus constructs, he entirely omits theological dogmas;[45] and he
treats with undissembled scorn many of those conclusions which the
people had hitherto universally received. He reminds his countrymen that
their religion is the accidental result of their birth and education,
and that if they had been born in a Mohammedan country, they would have
been as firm believers in Mohammedanism as they then were in
Christianity.[46] From this consideration, he insists on the absurdity
of their troubling themselves about the variety of creeds, seeing that
such variety is the result of circumstances over which they have no
control. Also it is to be observed, that each of these different
religions declares itself to be the true one;[47] and all of them are
equally based upon supernatural pretensions, such as mysteries,
miracles, prophets, and the like.[48] It is because men forget these
things, that they are the slaves of that confidence which is the great
obstacle to all real knowledge, and which can only be removed by taking
such a large and comprehensive view, as will show us how all nations
cling with equal zeal to the tenets in which they have been
educated.[49] And, says Charron, if we look a little deeper, we shall
see that each of the great religions is built upon that which preceded
it. Thus, the religion of the Jews is founded upon that of the
Egyptians; Christianity is the result of Judaism; and, from these two
last, there has naturally sprung Mohammedanism.[50] We, therefore, adds
this great writer, should rise above the pretensions of hostile sects,
and, without being terrified by the fear of future punishment, or
allured by the hope of future happiness, we should be content with such
practical religion as consists in performing the duties of life; and,
uncontrolled by the dogmas of any particular creed, we should strive to
make the soul retire inward upon itself, and by the efforts of its own
contemplation, admire the ineffable grandeur of the Being of beings, the
supreme cause of all created things.[51]
[43] Compare the remarks on Charron in _Tennemann_, _Geschichte der
Philosophie_, vol. ix. p. 527, with two insidious passages in
_Charron_, _De la Sagesse_, vol. i. pp. 4, 366.
[44] The obligations of Charron to Montaigne were very considerable, but
are stated too strongly by many writers. _Sorel_, _Bibliothèque
Françoise_, p. 93; and _Hallam's Literature of Europe_, vol. ii.
pp. 362, 509. On the most important subjects, Charron was a bolder
and deeper thinker than Montaigne; though he is now so little
read, that the only tolerably complete account I have seen of his
system is in _Tennemann_, _Gesch. der Philosophie_, vol. ix. pp.
458-487. Buhle (_Geschichte der neuern Philosophie_, vol. ii. pp.
918-925) and Cousin (_Hist. de la Philos._ II. série, vol. ii. p.
289) are short and unsatisfactory. Even Dr. Parr, who was
extensively read in this sort of literature, appears only to have
known Charron through Bayle (see notes on the Spital Sermon, in
_Parr's Works_, vol. ii. pp. 520, 521); while Dugald Stewart, with
suspicious tautology, quotes, in three different places, the same
passage from Charron. _Stewart's Philosophy of the Mind_, vol. ii.
p. 233, vol. iii. pp. 365, 393. Singularly enough, Talleyrand was
a great admirer of _De la Sagesse_, and presented his favourite
copy of it to Madame de Genlis! See her own account, in _Mém. de
Genlis_, vol. iv. pp. 352, 353.
[45] See his definition, or rather description, of wisdom, in Charron,
_De la Sagesse_, vol. i. p. 295, vol. ii. pp. 113, 115.
[46] _De la Sagesse_, vol. i. pp. 63, 351.
[47] 'Chacune se préfère aux autres, et se confie d'être la meilleure et
plus vraie que les autres, et s'entre-reprochent aussi les unes
aux autres quelque chose, et par-là s'entre-condamnent et
rejettent.' _De la Sagesse_, vol. i. p. 348; see also vol. i. pp.
144, 304, 305, 306, vol. ii. p. 116. Expressions almost identical
are used by M. Charles Compte, _Traité de Législation_, vol. i.
p. 233.
[48] 'Toutes trouvent et fournissent miracles, prodiges, oracles,
mystères sacrés, saints prophètes, fêtes, certains articles de foy
et créance nécessaires au salut.' _De la Sagesse_, vol. i. p. 346.
[49] Hence he opposes proselytism, and takes up the philosophic ground,
that religious opinions, being governed by undeviating laws, owe
their variations to variations in their antecedents, and are
always, if left to themselves, suited to the existing state of
things: 'Et de ces conclusions, nous apprendrons à n'épouser rien,
ne jurer à rien, n'admirer rien, ne se troubler de rien, mais quoi
qu'il advienne, que l'on crie, tempête, se resoudre à ce point,
que c'est le cours du monde, _c'est nature qui fait des siennes_.'
_Dela Sagesse_, vol. i. p. 311.
[50] 'Mais comme elles naissent l'une après l'autre, la plus jeune bâtit
toujours sur son aînée et prochaine précédente, laquelle elle
n'improuve, ni ne condamne de fond en comble, autrement elle ne
seroit pas ouïe, et ne pourroit prendre pied; mais seulement
l'accuse ou d'imperfection, ou de son terme fini, et qu'à cette
occasion elle vient pour lui succéder et la parfaire, et ainsi la
ruine peu-à-peu, et s'enrichit de ses dépouilles, comme la
Judaïque a fait à la Gentille et Egyptienne, la Chrétienne à la
Judaïque, la Mahometane à la Judaïque et Chrétienne ensemble: mais
les vieilles condamnent bien tout-à-fait et entièrement les
jeunes, et les tiennent pour ennemies capables.' _De la Sagesse_,
vol. i. p. 349. This, I believe, is the first instance in any
modern language of the doctrine of religious development; a
doctrine which, since Charron, has been steadily advancing,
particularly among men whose knowledge is extensive enough to
enable them to compare the different religions which have
prevailed at different times. In this, as in other subjects, they
who are unable to compare, suppose that everything is isolated,
simply because to them the continuity is invisible. As to the
Alexandrian doctrine of development, found particularly in Clement
and Origen, see _Neander's Hist. of the Church_, vol. ii. pp.
234-257; and in particular pp. 241, 246.
[51] _De la Sagesse_, vol. i. pp. 356, 365; two magnificent passages.
But the whole chapter ought to be read, livre ii. chap. v. In it
there is an occasional ambiguity. Tennemann, however, in the most
important point, understands Charron as I do in regard to the
doctrine of future punishments. _Geschichte der Philosophie_,
vol. ix. p. 473.
Such were the sentiments which, in the year 1601, were for the first
time laid before the French people in their own mother-tongue.[52] The
sceptical and secular spirit, of which they were the representatives,
continued to increase; and, as the seventeenth century advanced, the
decline of fanaticism, so far from being confined to a few isolated
thinkers, gradually became common, even among ordinary politicians.[53]
The clergy, sensible of the danger, wished the government to check the
progress of inquiry;[54] and the pope himself, in a formal remonstrance
with Henry, urged him to remedy the evil, by prosecuting the heretics,
from whom he thought all the mischief had originally proceeded.[55] But
this the king steadily refused. He saw the immense advantages that would
arise, if he could weaken the ecclesiastical power by balancing the two
sects against each other;[56] and therefore, though he was a Catholic,
his policy rather leaned in favour of the Protestants, as being the
weaker party.[57] He granted sums of money towards the support of their
ministers and the repair of their churches;[58] he banished the Jesuits,
who were their most dangerous enemies;[59] and he always had with him
two representatives of the reformed church, whose business it was to
inform him of any infraction of those edicts which he had issued in
favour of their religion.[60]
[52] The first edition of _La Sagesse_ was published at Bourdeaux in
1601. _Niceron_, _Hommes illustres_, vol. xvi. p. 224; _Hallam's
Lit. of Europe_, vol. ii. p. 509; _Biog. Univ._ vol. viii. p. 250.
Two editions were susequently published in Paris, in 1604 and
1607. _Brunet_, _Manuel du Libraire_, vol. i. p. 639.
[53] Sismondi (_Hist. des Français_, vol. xxii. p. 86) and Lavallée
(_Hist. des Français_, vol. iii. p. 84) have noticed the
diminution of religious zeal early in the seventeenth century; and
some curious evidence will also be found in the correspondence of
Duplessis Mornay. See, for instance, a letter he wrote to Diodati,
in 1609: 'A beaucoup aujourd'hui il fault commencer par là, qu'il
y a une religion, premier que de leur dire quelle.' _Duplessis_,
_Mém. et Corresp._ vol. x. p. 415. This middle, or secular party,
received the name of 'Politiques,' and began to be powerful in
1592 or 1593. Benoist (_Hist. de l'Edit de Nantes_, vol. i. p.
113), under the year 1593, contemptuously says: 'Il s'éleva une
foule de conciliateurs de religion;' see also pp. 201, 273. In
1590, and in 1594, the 'Politiques' are noticed by De Thou (_Hist.
Univ._ vol. xi. p. 171, vol. xii. p. 134); and on the increase, in
1593, of 'le tiers parti politique et négociateur,' see
_Capefigue_, _Hist. de la Réforme_, vol. vi. p. 235. See also,
respecting 'les politiques,' a letter from the Spanish ambassador
to his own court, in 1615, in _Capefigue's Richelieu_, vol. i. p.
93; and for the rise in Paris, in 1592, of a 'politisch und
kirchlich gemässigte Gesinnung,' see _Ranke_, _die Päpste_,
vol. ii. p. 243.
[54] The Sorbonne went so far as to condemn Charron's great work, but
could not succeed in having it prohibited. Compare _Duvernet_,
_Hist. de la Sorbonne_, vol. ii. p. 139, with _Bayle_, article
Charron, note F.
[55] In the appendix to Ranke (_Die Römischen Päpste_, vol. iii. pp.
141, 142), there will be found the instructions which were given
to the nuncio, in 1603, when he was sent to the French court; and
which should be compared with a letter, written in 1604, in
_Sully_, _[OE]conomies Royales_, vol. v. p. 122, edit. 1820.
[56] 'Sein Sinn war im Allgemeinen, ohne Zweifel, das Gleichgewicht
zwischen ihnen zu erhalten.' _Ranke_, _die Päpste_, vol. ii. pp.
430, 431. 'Henri IV, l'expression de l'indifférentisme religieux,
se posa comme une transaction entre ces deux systèmes.'
_Capefigue_, _Hist. de la Réforme_, vol. vi. p. 358. 'Henry IV.
endeavoured to adjust the balance evenly,' _Smedley's Hist. of the
Reformed Religion in France_, vol. iii. p. 19. See also _Benoist_,
_Hist. de l'Edit de Nantes_, vol. i. p. 136. Hence, of course,
neither party was quite satisfied. _Mably's Observations_, vol.
iii. p. 220; _Mezeray_, _Histoire de France_, vol. iii. p. 959.
[57] Compare _Capefigue_, _Hist. de la Réforme_, vol. viii. p. 61, with
_Bazin_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. i. pp. 32, 33. See also, on
his inclination towards the Protestants, _Mém. de Fontenay
Mareuil_, vol. i. p. 91. Fontenay, p. 94, mentions, as a singular
instance, that 'il se vist de son temps des huguenots avoir des
abbayes.'
[58] _Sully_, _[OE]conomies Royales_, vol. iv. p. 134, vol. vi. p. 233;
_Duplessis Mornay_, _Mém. et Corresp._ vol. xi. p. 242; _Benoist_,
_Hist. de l'Edit de Nantes_, vol. ii. pp. 68, 205. These grants
were annual, and were apportioned by the Protestants themselves.
See their own account, in _Quick's Synodicon in Gallia_, vol. i.
pp. 198, 222, 246, 247, 249, 275-277.
[59] Henry IV. banished the Jesuits in 1594; but they were allowed,
later in his reign, to make fresh settlements in France.
_Flassan_, _Hist. de la Diplomatie_, vol. vi. p. 485; _Bazin_,
_Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. i. p. 106; _Monteil_, _Divers Etats_,
vol. v. p. 192 note; _De Thou_, _Hist. Univ._ vol. xiv. p. 298.
Compare the notices of them in _Sully_, _[OE]conomies_, vol. ii.
p. 234, vol. iv. pp. 200, 235, 245. But there can be little doubt
that they owed their recall to the dread entertained of their
intrigues (_Grégoire_, _Hist. des Confesseurs_, p. 316); and Henry
evidently disliked as well as feared them. See two letters from
him in _Duplessis_, _Mém. et Corresp._ vol. vi. pp. 129, 151. It
would appear, from the _Mém. de Richelieu_, vol. v. p. 350, Paris,
1823, that the king never restored to them their former authority
in regard to education.
[60] _Bazin_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. i. pp. 142, 143; _Le Vassor_,
vol. i. p. 156; _Sismondi_, vol. xxii. p. 116; _Duplessis Mornay_,
vol. i. p. 389; _Sully_, _[OE]conomies_, vol. vii. pp. 105, 432,
442.
Thus it was, that in France, as well as in England, toleration was
preceded by scepticism; and thus it was, that out of this scepticism
there arose the humane and enlightened measures of Henry IV. The great
prince, by whom these things were effected, unhappily fell a victim to
that fanatical spirit which he had done much to curb;[61] but the
circumstances which occurred after his death, showed how great an
impetus had been given to the age.
[61] When Ravaillac was examined, he said, 'qu'il y avait été excité par
l'intérêt de la religion, et par une impulsion irrésistible.'
_Bazin_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. i. p. 38. This work contains
the fullest account I have met with of Ravaillac; of whom there
is, moreover, a description in _Les Historiettes de Tallemant des
Réaux_, vol. i. p. 85, Paris, 1840, a very curious book.
On the murder of Henry IV., in 1610, the government fell into the hands
of the queen, who administered it during the minority of her son, Louis
XIII. And it is a remarkable evidence of the direction which the mind
was now taking, that she, though a weak and bigoted woman,[62] refrained
from those persecutions which, only one generation before, had been
considered a necessary proof of religious sincerity. That, indeed, must
have been a movement of no common energy, which could force toleration,
early in the seventeenth century, upon a princess of the house of
Medici, an ignorant and superstitious Catholic, who had been educated
in the midst of her priests, and had been accustomed to look for their
applause as the highest object of earthly ambition.
[62] Le Vassor (_Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. i. p. 279) calls her
'superstitieuse au dernier point;' and, in vol. v. p. 481, 'femme
crédule et superstitieuse.' See also vol. iii. p. 250, vol. vi. p.
628; and _Grégoire_, _Hist. des Confesseurs_, p. 65.
Yet this was what actually occurred. The queen continued the ministers
of Henry IV., and announced, that in every thing she would follow his
example.[63] Her first public act was, a declaration, that the Edict of
Nantes should be inviolably preserved; for, she says, 'experience has
taught our predecessors, that violence, so far from inducing men to
return to the Catholic church, prevents them from doing so.'[64] Indeed,
so anxious was she upon this point, that when Louis, in 1614, attained
his nominal majority, the first act of his government was another
confirmation of the Edict of Nantes.[65] And, in 1615, she caused the
king, who still remained under her tutelage,[66] to issue a
declaration, by which all preceding measures in favour of the
Protestants were publicly confirmed.[67] In the same spirit, she, in
1611, wished to raise to the presidency of parliament the celebrated De
Thou; and it was only by making a formal announcement of his heresy,
that the pope succeeded in frustrating what he considered an impious
design.[68]
[63] 'Elle annonça qu'elle vouloit suivre en tout l'exemple du feu
roi.... Le ministère de Henri IV, que la reine continuoit.'
_Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. xxii. pp. 206, 210; and see
two letters from her, in _Duplessis Mornay_, _Mém. et Corresp._
vol. xi. p. 282, vol. xii. p. 428. Sully had feared that the death
of Henry IV. would cause a change of policy: 'que l'on s'alloit
jeter dans des desseins tous contraires aux règles, ordres et
maximes du feu roy.' _[OE]conomies Royales_, vol. viii. p. 401.
[64] See the declaration in Bazin, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. i. pp.
74, 75; and notices of it in _Mém. de Richelieu_, vol. i. p. 58;
_Capefigue's Richelieu_, vol. i. p. 27; _Benoist_, _Hist. de
l'Edit de Nantes_, vol. ii. p. 7; _Le Vassor_, _Hist. de Louis
XIII_, vol. i. p. 58. But none of these writers, nor Sismondi
(vol. xxii. p. 221), appear to be aware that the issuing of this
declaration was determined on, in council, as early as the 17th of
May; that is, only three days after the death of Henry IV. This is
mentioned by Pontchartrain, who was then one of the ministers. See
_Mém. de Pontchartrain_, edit. Petitot, 1822, vol. i. p. 409; a
book little known, but well worthy of being read.
[65] _Bazin_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. i. p. 262; _Benoist_, _Hist.
de l'Edit de Nantes_, vol. ii. p. 140; _Mém. de Fontenay Mareuil_,
vol. i. p. 257; _Le Vassor_, vol. i. p. 604.
[66] 'Laissant néanmoins l'administration du royaume à la reine sa
mère.' _Mém. de Bassompierre_, vol. ii. p. 52. Compare _Sully_,
_[OE]conomies_, vol. ix. p. 177. She possessed complete authority
over the king till 1617. See _Mémoires de Montglat_, vol. i. p.
24: 'avoit été tenu fort bas par la reine sa mère.' See also _Le
Vassor, Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. ii. pp. 640, 677, 716, 764.
[67] _Bazin_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. i. pp. 381, 382.
[68] In 1611, 'le pape le rejeta formellement comme hérétique.' _Bazin_,
vol. i. p. 174. This is glossed over by Pontchartrain (_Mémoires_,
vol. i. p. 450); but the statement of M. Bazin is confirmed in the
preface to _De Thou_, _Histoire Universelle_, vol. i. p. xvi.
The turn which things were now taking, caused no little alarm to the
friends of the hierarchy. The most zealous churchmen loudly censured the
policy of the queen; and a great historian has observed that when,
during the reign of Louis XIII., such alarm was caused in Europe by the
active encroachments of the ecclesiastical power, France was the first
country that ventured to oppose them.[69] The nuncio openly complained
to the queen of her conduct in favouring heretics; and he anxiously
desired that those Protestant works should be suppressed, by which the
consciences of true believers were greatly scandalized.[70] But these,
and similar representations, were no longer listened to with the respect
they would formerly have received; and the affairs of the country
continued to be administered with those purely temporal views, on which
the measures of Henry IV. had been avowedly based.[71]
[69] 'Der erste Einhalt den die kirchliche Restauration erfuhr, geschah
in Frankreich,' _Ranke_, _die Römischen Päpste_, vol. iii. p. 160.
[70] This desire was expressed several times, but in vain: 'Gern hätten
die Nuntien Werke wie von Thou und Richer verboten, aber es war
ihnen nicht möglich,' _Ranke_, _die Päpste_, vol. iii. p. 181,
Anhang. Compare _Mém. de Richelieu_, vol. ii. p. 68; _Mém. de
Pontchartrain_, vol. i. p. 428.
[71] This decline of the ecclesiastical power is noticed by many writers
of the time; but it is sufficient to refer to the very curious
remonstrance of the French clergy, in 1605, in _De Thou_, _Hist.
Univ._ vol. xiv. pp. 446, 447.
Such was now the policy of the government of France; a government
which, not many years before, had considered it the great duty of a
sovereign to punish heretics and extirpate heresy. That this continued
improvement was merely the result of the general intellectual
development, is evident, not only from its success, but also from the
character of the queen-regent and the king. No one who has read the
contemporary memoirs, can deny that Mary de Medici and Louis XIII. were
as superstitious as any of their predecessors; and it is, therefore,
evident, that this disregard of theological prejudices was due, not to
their own personal merits, but to the advancing knowledge of the
country, and to the pressure of an age which, in the rapidity of its
progress, hurried along those who believed themselves to be its rulers.
But these considerations, weighty as they are, will only slightly
diminish the merit of that remarkable man, who now appeared on the stage
of public affairs. During the last eighteen years of the reign of Louis
XIII., France was entirely governed by Richelieu,[72] one of that
extremely small class of statesmen to whom it is given to impress their
own character on the destiny of their country. This great ruler has, in
his knowledge of the political art, probably never been surpassed,
except by that prodigy of genius who, in our time, troubled the fortunes
of Europe. But, in one important view, Richelieu was superior to
Napoleon. The life of Napoleon was a constant effort to oppress the
liberties of mankind; and his unrivalled capacity exhausted its
resources in struggling against the tendencies of a great age.
Richelieu, too, was a despot; but his despotism took a nobler turn. He
displayed, what Napoleon never possessed, a just appreciation of the
spirit of his own time. In one great point, indeed, he failed. His
attempts to destroy the power of the French nobility were altogether
futile;[73] for, owing to a long course of events, the authority of that
insolent class was so deeply rooted in the popular mind, that the
labours of another century were required to efface its ancient
influence. But, though Richelieu could not diminish the social and moral
weight of the French nobles, he curtailed their political privileges;
and he chastised their crimes with a severity which, for a time at
least, repressed their former license.[74] So little, however, can even
the ablest statesman effect, unless he is seconded by the general temper
of the age in which he lives, that these checks, rude as they were,
produced no permanent result. After his death, the French nobles, as we
shall presently see, quickly rallied; and, in the wars of the Fronde,
debased that great struggle into a mere contest of rival families. Nor
was it until the close of the eighteenth century, that France was
finally relieved from the overweening influence of that powerful class,
whose selfishness had long retarded the progress of civilization, by
retaining the people in a thraldom, from the remote effects of which
they have not yet fully recovered.
[72] As M. Monteil says (_Hist. des Français des divers Etats_, vol.
vii. p. 114), 'Richelieu tint le sceptre; Louis XIII. porta la
couronne.' And Campion (_Mémoires_, p. 37) calls him 'plutôt le
maître que le ministre;' and adds, pp. 218, 219, that he 'avoit
gouverné dix-huit ans la France avec un pouvoir absolu et une
gloire sans pareille.' Compare _Mém. du Cardinal de Retz_, vol. i
p. 63.
[73] The common opinion, put forth in _Alison's Hist. of Europe_, vol.
i. pp. 101-104, and in many other books, is that Richelieu did
destroy their influence; but this error arises from confusing
political influence with social influence. What is termed the
political power of a class, is merely the symptom and
manifestation of its real power; and it is no use to attack the
first, unless you can also weaken the second. The real power of
the nobles was social, and that neither Richelieu nor Louis XIV.
could impair; and it remained intact until the middle of the
eighteenth century, when the intellect of France rebelled against
it, overthrew it, and finally effected the French Revolution.
[74] Richelieu appears to have formed the design of humbling the nobles,
at least as early as 1624. See a characteristic passage in his
_Mémoires_, vol. ii. p. 340. In _Swinburne's Courts of Europe_,
vol. ii. pp. 63-65, there is a curious traditional anecdote,
which, though probably false, shows, at all events, the fear and
hatred with which the French nobles regarded the memory of
Richelieu more than a century after his death.
Although in this respect Richelieu failed in achieving his designs, he
in other matters met with signal success. This was owing to the fact,
that his large and comprehensive views harmonized with that sceptical
tendency, of which I have just given some account. For this remarkable
man, though he was a bishop and a cardinal, never for a moment allowed
the claims of his profession to make him forego the superior claims of
his country. He knew, what is too often forgotten, that the governor of
a people should measure affairs solely by a political standard, and
should pay no regard to the pretensions of any sect, or the propagation
of any opinions, except in reference to the present and practical
welfare of men. The consequence was, that, during his administration,
there was seen the marvellous spectacle of supreme authority wielded by
a priest, who took no pains to increase the power of the spiritual
classes. Indeed, so far from this, he often treated them with what was
then considered unexampled rigour. The royal confessors, on account of
the importance of their functions, had always been regarded with a
certain veneration; they were supposed to be men of unspotted piety;
they had hitherto possessed immense influence, and even the most
powerful statesmen had thought it advisable to show them the deference
due to their exalted position.[75] Richelieu, however, was too familiar
with the arts of his profession, to feel much respect for these keepers
of the consciences of kings. Caussin, the confessor of Louis XIII., had,
it seems, followed the example of his predecessors, and endeavoured to
instill his own views of policy into the mind of the royal penitent.[76]
But Richelieu, so soon as he heard of this, dismissed him from office,
and sent him into exile; for, he contemptuously says, 'the little father
Caussin' should not interfere in matters of government, since he is one
of those 'who have always been brought up in the innocence of a
religious life.'[77] Caussin was succeeded by the celebrated Sirmond; but
Richelieu would not allow the new confessor to begin his duties, until
he had solemnly promised never to interfere in state affairs.[78]
[75] On their influence, see _Grégoire_, _Histoire des Confesseurs_; and
compare the remarks of Mr. Grote, a great writer, whose mind is
always ready with historical analogies. _Grote's Hist. of Greece_,
vol. vi. p. 393, 2nd edit. 1851. Many of the French kings had a
strong natural affection for monks; but the most singular instance
I have found of this sort of love is mentioned by no less a man
than De Thou, respecting Henry III. De Thou (_Hist. Univ._ vol. x.
pp. 666, 667) says of that prince: 'Soit tempérament, soit
éducation, la présence d'un moine faisait toujours plaisir à
Henri; et je lui ai moi-même souvent entendu dire, que leur vue
produisoit le même effet sur son âme, que le chatouillement le
plus délicat sur le corps.'
[76] One of his suggestions was, 'sur les dangers que couroit le
catholicisme en Allemagne, par ses liaisons avec les puissances
protestantes.' _Grégoire_, _Histoire des Confesseurs_, p. 342. The
fullest account of Caussin is in _Le Vassor_, _Hist. de Louis
XIII_, vol. ix. pp. 287-299; to which, however, Grégoire never
refers. As I shall have frequent occasion to quote Le Vassor, I
may observe, that he is far more accurate than is generally
supposed, and that he has been very unfairly treated by the
majority of French writers, among whom he is unpopular, on account
of his constant attacks on Louis XIV. Sismondi (_Hist. des
Français_, vol. xxii. pp. 188, 189) speaks highly of his _Hist. of
Louis XIII_; and so far as my own reading extends, I can confirm
his favourable opinion.
[77] 'Le petit père Caussin.' _Mém. de Richelieu_, vol. x. p. 206; and
at p. 217, he is classed among the 'personnes qui avoient toujours
été nourries dans l'innocence d'une vie religieuse;' see also p.
215, on his 'simplicité et ignorance.' Respecting Richelieu's
treatment of Caussin, see _Mém. de Montglat_, vol. i. pp. 173-175;
_Lettres de Patin_, vol. i. p. 49; _Des Réaux, Historiettes_, vol.
ii. p. 182.
[78] _Sismondi, Hist. des Français_, vol. xxiii. p. 332; _Tallemant des
Réaux, Historiettes_, vol. iii. p. 78 note. Le Vassor (_Hist. de
Louis XIII_, vol. x. part ii. p. 761) says, that Sirmond 'se
soutint à la cour sous le ministère de Richelieu, parce qu'il ne
se mêloit point des affaires d'état.' According to the same writer
(vol. viii. p. 156), Richelieu thought at one time of depriving
the Jesuits of their post of confessor to the king.
On another occasion of much more importance, Richelieu displayed a
similar spirit. The French clergy were then possessed of enormous
wealth; and, as they enjoyed the privilege of taxing themselves, they
were careful not to make what they considered unnecessary contributions
towards defraying the expenses of the state. They had cheerfully
advanced money to carry on war against the Protestants, because they
believed it to be their duty to assist in the extirpation of
heresy.[79] But they saw no reason why their revenues should be wasted
in effecting mere temporal benefits; they considered themselves as the
guardians of funds set apart for spiritual purposes, and they thought it
impious that wealth consecrated by the piety of their ancestors should
fall into the profane hands of secular statesmen. Richelieu, who looked
on these scruples as the artifices of interested men, had taken a very
different view of the relation which the clergy bore to the country.[80]
So far from thinking that the interests of the church were superior to
those of the state, he laid it down as a maxim of policy, that 'the
reputation of the state was the first consideration.'[81] With such
fearlessness did he carry out this principle, that having convoked at
Nantes a great assembly of the clergy, he compelled them to aid the
government by an extraordinary supply of 6,000,000 francs; and finding
that some of the highest dignitaries had expressed their discontent at
so unusual a step, he laid hands on them also, and to the amazement of
the church, sent into exile not only four of the bishops, but likewise
the two archbishops of Toulouse and of Sens.[82]
[79] _Lavallée_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. iii. p. 87; _Le Vassor_,
_Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. iv. p. 208; _Bazin_, _Hist. de Louis
XIII_, vol. ii. p. 144; _Benoist_, _Hist. de l'Edit de Nantes_,
vol. ii. pp. 337, 338. Benoist says: 'Le clergé de France,
ignorant et corrompu, croyoit tout son devoir compris dans
l'extirpation des hérétiques; et même il offroit de grandes
sommes, à condition qu'on les employât à cette guerre.'
[80] In which he is fully borne out by the high authority of Vattel,
whose words I shall quote, for the sake of those politicians who
still cleave to the superannuated theory of the sacredness of
church-property: 'Loin que l'exemption appartienne aux biens
d'église parce qu'ils sont consacrés à Dieu, c'est au contraire
par cette raison même, qu'ils doivent être pris les premiers pour
le salut de l'état; car il n'y a rien de plus agréable au Père
commun des hommes, que de garantir une nation de sa ruine. Dieu
n'ayant besoin de rien, lui consacrer des biens, c'est les
destiner à des usages qui lui soient agréables. De plus, les biens
de l'église, de l'aveu du clergé lui-même, sont en grande partie
destinés aux pauvres. Quand l'état est dans le besoin, il est sans
doute le premier pauvre, et le plus digne de secours.' _Vattel_,
_le Droit des Gens_, vol. i. pp. 176, 177.
[81] 'Que la réputation de l'état est préférable à toutes choses.' _Mém.
de Richelieu_, vol. ii. p. 482. This was in 1625, and by way of
refuting the legate.
[82] _Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. xxiii. pp. 477, 478;
_Bazin_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. iv. pp. 325, 326. The
Cardinal de Retz, who knew Richelieu personally, says: 'M. le
cardinal de Richelieu avoit donné une atteinte cruelle à la
dignité et à la liberté du clergé dans l'assemblée de Mante, et il
avoit exilé, avec des circonstances atroces, six de ses prélats
les plus considérables.' _Mém. de Retz_, vol. i. p. 50.
If these things had been done fifty years earlier, they would most
assuredly have proved fatal to the minister who dared to attempt them.
But Richelieu, in these and similar measures, was aided by the spirit of
an age which was beginning to despise its ancient masters. For this
general tendency was now becoming apparent, not only in literature and
in politics, but even in the proceedings of the ordinary tribunals. The
nuncio indignantly complained of the hostility displayed against
ecclesiastics by the French judges; and he said that, among other
shameful things, some clergymen had been hung, without being first
deprived of their spiritual character.[83] On other occasions, the
increasing contempt showed itself in a way well suited to the coarseness
of the prevailing manners. Sourdis, the archbishop of Bourdeaux, was
twice ignominiously beaten; once by the Duke d'Epernon, and afterwards
by the Maréchal de Vitry.[84] Nor did Richelieu, who usually treated the
nobles with such severity, seem anxious to punish this gross outrage.
Indeed, the archbishop not only received no sympathy, but, a few years
later, was peremptorily ordered by Richelieu to retire to his own
diocese; such, however, was his alarm at the state of affairs, that he
fled to Carpentras, and put himself under the protection of the
pope.[85] This happened in 1641 and nine years earlier, the church had
incurred a still greater scandal. For in 1632, serious disturbances
having arisen in Languedoc, Richelieu did not fear to meet the
difficulty by depriving some of the bishops, and seizing the
temporalities of the others.[86]
[83] 'Die Nuntien finden kein Ende der Beschwerden die sie machen zu
müssen glauben, vorzüglich über die Beschränkungen welche die
geistliche Jurisdiction erfahre.... Zuweilen werde ein Geistlicher
hingerichtet ohne erst degradirt zu seyn.' _Ranke_, _die Päpste_,
vol. iii. p. 157: a summary, in 1641, of the complaints of the
then nuncio, and of those of his predecessors. Le Vassor (_Hist.
de Louis XIII_, vol. v. pp. 51 seq.) has given some curious
details respecting the animosity between the clergy and the
secular tribunals of France in 1624.
[84] _Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. xxiii. p. 301; _Mém. de
Bassompierre_, vol. iii. pp. 302, 353. Bazin, who notices this
disgraceful affair, simply says (_Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. iii.
p. 453): 'Le maréchal de Vitry, suivant l'exemple qui lui en avoit
donné le duc d'Epernon, s'emporta jusqu'à le frapper de son
bâton.' In regard to Epernon, the best account is in _Mém. de
Richelieu_, where it is stated (vol. viii. p. 194) that the duke,
just before flogging the archbishop, 'disoit au peuple,
"Rangez-vous, vous verrez comme j'étrillerai votre archevêque."'
This was stated by a witness, who heard the duke utter the words.
Compare, for further information, _Le Vassor_, _Hist. de Louis
XIII_, vol. x. part ii. p. 97, with _Tallemant des Réaux_,
_Historiettes_, vol. iii. p. 116. Des Réaux, who, in his own way,
was somewhat of a philosopher, contentedly says: 'Cet archevêque
se pouvoit vanter d'être le prélat du monde qui avoit été le plus
battu.' His brother was Cardinal Sourdis; a man of some little
reputation in his own time, and concerning whom a curious anecdote
is related in _Mém. de Conrart_, pp. 231-234.
[85] _Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. xxiii. p. 470. Le Vassor
(_Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. x. part ii. p. 149) says: 'Il
s'enfuit donc honteusement à Carpentras sous la protection du
pape.'
[86] 'Les évêques furent punis par la saisie de leur temporel; Alby,
Nimes, Uzés, furent privées de leurs prélats.' _Capefigue's
Richelieu_, Paris, 1844, vol. ii. p. 24. The Protestants were
greatly delighted at the punishment of the bishops of Alby and
Nimes, which 'les ministres regardoient comme une vengeance
divine.' _Benoist_, _Hist. de l'Edit de Nantes_, vol. ii. pp. 528,
529.
The indignation of the clergy may be easily imagined. Such repeated
injuries, even if they had proceeded from a layman, would have been hard
to endure; but they were rendered doubly bitter by being the work of one
of themselves--one who had been nurtured in the profession against which
he turned. This it was which aggravated the offence, because it seemed
to be adding treachery to insult. It was not a war from without, but it
was a treason from within. It was a bishop who humbled the episcopacy,
and a cardinal who affronted the church.[87] Such, however, was the
general temper of men, that the clergy did not venture to strike an
open blow; but, by means of their partisans, they scattered the most
odious libels against the great minister. They said that he was
unchaste, that he was guilty of open debauchery, and that he held
incestuous commerce with his own niece.[88] They declared that he had no
religion; that he was only a Catholic in name; that he was the pontiff
of the Huguenots; that he was the patriarch of atheists;[89] and what
was worse than all, they even accused him of wishing to establish a
schism in the French church.[90] Happily the time was now passing away
in which the national mind could be moved by such artifices as these.
Still the charges are worth recording, because they illustrate the
tendency of public affairs, and the bitterness with which the spiritual
classes saw the reins of power falling from their hands. Indeed, all
this was so manifest, that in the last civil war raised against
Richelieu, only two years before his death, the insurgents stated in
their proclamation, that one of their objects was to revive the respect
with which the clergy and nobles had formerly been treated.[91]
[87] In a short account of Richelieu, which was published immediately
after his death, the writer indignantly says, that 'being a
cardinal, he afflicted the church.' _Somers Tracts_. vol. v. p.
540. Compare _Bazin_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. iv. p. 322.
[88] This scandalous charge in regard to his niece was a favourite one
with the clergy; and among many other instances, the accusation
was brought by the Cardinal de Valençay in the grossest manner.
See _Tallemant des Réaux_, _Historiettes_, vol. iii. p. 201.
[89] 'De là ces petits écrits qui le dénonçaient comme le "pontife des
huguenots" ou "le patriarche des athées."' _Capefigue's
Richelieu_, vol. i. p. 312.
[90] Compare _Des Réaux_, _Historiettes_, vol. ii. p. 233, with _Le
Vassor_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. viii. part ii. pp. 177, 178,
vol. ix. p. 277.
[91] See the manifesto in _Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. xxiii.
pp. 452, 453.
The more we study the career of Richelieu, the more prominent does this
antagonism become. Every thing proves that he was conscious of a great
struggle going on between the old ecclesiastical scheme of government
and the new secular scheme; and that he was determined to put down the
old plan, and uphold the new one. For, not only in his domestic
administration, but also in his foreign policy, do we find the same
unprecedented disregard of theological interests. The House of Austria,
particularly its Spanish branch, had long been respected by all pious
men as the faithful ally of the church; it was looked upon as the
scourge of heresy; and its proceedings against the heretics had won for
it a great name in ecclesiastical history.[92] When, therefore, the
French government, in the reign of Charles IX., made a deliberate
attempt to destroy the Protestants, France naturally established an
intimate connexion with Spain as well as with Rome;[93] and these three
great powers were firmly united, not by a community of temporal
interests, but by the force of a religious compact. This theological
confederacy was afterwards broken up by the personal character of Henry
IV.,[94] and by the growing indifference of the age; but during the
minority of Louis XIII., the queen-regent had in some degree renewed it,
and had attempted to revive the superstitious prejudices upon which it
was based.[95] In all her feelings, she was a zealous Catholic; she was
warmly attached to Spain; and she succeeded in marrying her son, the
young king, to a Spanish princess, and her daughter to a Spanish
prince.[96]
[92] Late in the sixteenth century, 'fils aîné de l'Eglise' was the
recognized and well-merited title of the kings of Spain. _De
Thou_, _Hist. Univ._ vol. xi. p. 280. Compare _Duplessis Mornay_,
_Mém. et Correspond._ vol. xi. p. 21. And on the opinions which
the Catholics, early in the seventeenth century, generally held
respecting Spain, see _Mém. de Fontenay_, _Mareuil_, vol. i. p.
189; _Mém. de Bassompierre_, vol. i. p. 424.
[93] As to the connexion between this foreign policy and the massacre of
Saint Bartholomew, see _Capefigue_, _Hist. de la Réforme_,
vol. iii. pp. 253, 268, 269.
[94] On the policy, and still more on the feelings, of Henry IV. towards
the House of Austria, see _Sully_, _[OE]conomies Royales_, vol.
ii. p. 291, vol. iii. pp. 162, 166, vol. iv. pp. 289, 290, 321,
343, 344, 364, vol. v. p. 123, vol. vi. p. 293, vol. vii. p. 303,
vol. viii. pp. 195, 202, 348.
[95] _Capefigue's Richelieu_, vol. i. pp. 26, 369; _Mém. de Montglat_,
vol. i. pp. 16, 17; _Le Vassor_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol i. p.
268, vol. vi. p. 349; _Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. xxii.
p. 227. Her husband, Henry IV., said that she had 'the soul of a
Spaniard.' _Capefigue_, _Hist. de la Réforme_, vol. viii. p. 150.
[96] This was, in her opinion, a master-stroke of policy: 'Entêtée du
double mariage avec l'Espagne qu'elle avoit ménagé avec tant
d'application, et qu'elle regardoit comme le plus ferme appui de
son autorité.' _Le Vassor_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. i. pp.
453, 454.
It might have been expected that when Richelieu, a great dignitary of
the Romish church, was placed at the head of affairs, he would have
reëstablished a connexion so eagerly desired by the profession to which
he belonged.[97] But his conduct was not regulated by such views as
these. His object was, not to favour the opinions of a sect, but to
promote the interests of a nation. His treaties, his diplomacy, and the
schemes of his foreign alliances, were all directed, not against the
enemies of the church, but against the enemies of France. By erecting
this new standard of action, Richelieu took a great step towards
secularizing the whole system of European politics. For he thus made the
theoretical interests of men subordinate to their practical interests.
Before his time, the rulers of France, in order to punish their
Protestant subjects, had not hesitated to demand the aid of the Catholic
troops of Spain; and in so doing, they merely acted upon the old
opinion, that it was the chief duty of a government to suppress heresy.
This pernicious doctrine was first openly repudiated by Richelieu. As
early as 1617, and before he had established his power, he, in an
instruction to one of the foreign ministers which is still extant, laid
it down as a principle, that, in matters of state, no Catholic ought to
prefer a Spaniard to a French Protestant.[98] To us, indeed, in the
progress of society, such preference of the claims of our country to
those of our creed, has become a matter of course; but in those days it
was a startling novelty.[99] Richelieu, however, did not fear to push
the paradox even to its remotest consequences. The Catholic church
justly considered that its interests were bound up with those of the
House of Austria;[100] but Richelieu, directly he was called to the
council, determined to humble that house in both its branches.[101] To
effect this, he openly supported the bitterest enemies of his own
religion. He aided the Lutherans against the Emperor of Germany; he
aided the Calvinists against the king of Spain. During the eighteen
years he was supreme, he steadily pursued the same undeviating
policy.[102] When Philip attempted to repress the Dutch Protestants,
Richelieu made common cause with them; at first, advancing them large
sums of money, and afterwards inducing the French king to sign a treaty
of intimate alliance with those who, in the opinion of the church, he
ought rather to have chastized as rebellious heretics.[103] In the same
way, when that great war broke out, in which the emperor attempted to
subjugate to the true faith the consciences of German Protestants,
Richelieu stood forward as their protector; he endeavoured from the
beginning to save their leader the Palatine;[104] and, failing in that,
he concluded in their favour an alliance with Gustavus Adolphus,[105]
the ablest military commander the Reformers had then produced. Nor did
he stop there. After the death of Gustavus, he, seeing that the
Protestants were thus deprived of their great leader, made still more
vigorous efforts in their favour.[106] He intrigued for them in foreign
courts; he opened negotiations in their behalf; and eventually he
organized for their protection a public confederacy, in which all
ecclesiastical considerations were set at defiance. This league, which
formed an important precedent in the international polity of Europe, was
not only contracted by Richelieu with the two most powerful enemies of
his own church, but it was, from its tenor, what Sismondi emphatically
calls a 'Protestant confederation'--a Protestant confederation, he says,
between France, England, and Holland.[107]
[97] So late as 1656, the French clergy wished 'to hasten a peace with
Spain, and to curb the heretics in France,' _Letter from Pell to
Thurloe_, written in 1656, and printed in _Vaughan's Protectorate
of Cromwell_, vol. i. p. 436, 8vo, 1839. During the minority of
Louis XIII. we hear of 'les zéléz catholiques, et ceux qui
désiroient, à quelque prix que ce fut, l'union des deux roys, et
des deux couronnes de France et d'Espagne, comme le seul moyen
propre, selon leur advis, pour l'extirpation des hérésies dans la
chrestienté.' _Sully_, _[OE]con. Royales_, vol. ix. p. 181:
compare vol. vii. p. 248, on 'les zéléz catholiques espagnolisez
de France.'
[98] See _Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. xxii. pp. 387-389, where
the importance of this document is noticed, and it is said that
Richelieu had drawn it up 'avec beaucoup de soin.' The language of
it is very peremptory: 'Que nul catholique n'est si aveugle
d'estimer en matière d'état un Espagnol meilleur qu'un Français
huguenot.'
[99] Even in the reign of Henry IV. the French Protestants were not
considered to be Frenchmen: 'The intolerant dogmas of Roman
Catholicism did not recognize them as Frenchmen. They were looked
upon as foreigners, or rather as enemies; and were treated as
such.' _Felice's Hist. of the Protestants of France_, p. 216.
[100] Sismondi says, under the year 1610, 'Toute l'église catholique
croyoit son sort lié à celui de la maison d'Autriche,' _Hist. des
Français_, vol. xxii. p. 180.
[101] 'Sa vue dominante fut l'abaissement de la maison d'Autriche.'
_Flassan_, _Hist. de la Diplomatie Française_, vol. iii. p. 81.
And, on the early formation of this scheme, see _Mém. de la
Rochefoucauld_, vol. i. p. 350. De Retz says, that before
Richelieu, no one had even thought of such a step: 'Celui
d'attaquer la formidable maison d'Autriche n'avoit été imaginé de
personne.' _Mém. de Retz_, vol. i. p. 45. This is rather too
strongly expressed; but the whole paragraph is curious, as
written by a man who possessed great ability, which De Retz
undoubtedly did, and who, though hating Richelieu, could not
refrain from bearing testimony to his immense services.
[102] 'Obwohl Cardinal der römischen Kirche, trug Richelieu kein
Bedenken, mit den Protestanten selbst unverhohlen in Bund zu
treten,' _Ranke_, _die Päpste_, vol. ii. p. 510. Compare, in
_Mém. de Fontenay Mareuil_, vol. ii. pp. 28, 29, the reproach
which the nuncio Spada addressed to Richelieu for treating with
the Protestants, 'de la paix qui se traitoit avec les huguenots.'
See also _Le Vassor_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. v. pp. 236,
354-356, 567; and a good passage in _Lavallée_, _Hist. des
Français_, vol. iii. p. 90,--an able little work, and perhaps the
best small history ever published of a great country.
[103] De Retz mentions a curious illustration of the feelings of the
ecclesiastical party respecting this treaty. He says, that the
Bishop of Beauvais, who, the year after the death of Richelieu,
was for a moment at the head of affairs, began his administration
by giving to the Dutch their choice, either to abandon their
religion, or else forfeit their alliance with France: 'Et il
demanda dès le premier jour aux Hollandois qu'ils se
convertissent à la religion catholique, s'ils vouloient demeurer
dans l'alliance de France.' _Mém. du Cardinal de Retz_, vol. i.
p. 39. This, I suppose, is the original authority for the
statement in the _Biog. Univ._ vol. xiv. p. 440; though, as is
too often the case in that otherwise valuable work, the writer
has omitted to indicate the source of his information.
[104] In 1626, he attempted to form a league 'en faveur du Palatin,'
_Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. xxii. p. 576. Sismondi
seems not quite certain as to the sincerity of his proposal; but
as to this there can, I think, be little doubt; for it appears
from his own memoirs, that even in 1624 he had in view the
recovery of the Palatinate. _Mém. de Richelieu_, vol. ii. p. 405;
and again in 1625, p. 468.
[105] _Sismondi_, vol. xxiii. p. 173; _Capefigue's Richelieu_, vol. i.
p. 415; _Le Vassor_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. vi. pp. 12, 600;
and at p. 489: 'Le roi de Suède qui comptoit uniquement sur le
cardinal.'
[106] Compare _Mém. de Montglat_, vol. i. pp. 74, 75, vol. ii. pp. 92,
93, with _Mém. de Fontenay Mareuil_, vol. ii. p. 198; and
_Howell's Letters_, p. 247. The different views which occurred to
his fertile mind in consequence of the death of Gustavus, are
strikingly summed up in _Mém. de Richelieu_, vol. vii. pp.
272-277. On his subsequent pecuniary advances, see vol. ix.
p. 395.
[107] In 1633, 'les ambassadeurs de France, d'Angleterre et de Hollande
mirent à profit le repos de l'hiver pour resserrer la
confédération protestante,' _Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_,
vol. xxiii. p. 221. Compare, in _Whitelocke's Swedish Embassy_,
vol. i. p. 275, the remark made twenty years later by Christina,
daughter of Gustavus, on the union with 'papists.'
These things alone would have made the administration of Richelieu a
great epoch in the history of European civilization. For his government
affords the first example of an eminent Catholic statesman
systematically disregarding ecclesiastical interests, and showing that
disregard in the whole scheme of his foreign, as well as of his
domestic, policy. Some instances, indeed, approaching to this, may be
found, at an earlier period, among the petty rulers of Italian states;
but, even there, such attempts have never been successful; they had
never been continued for any length of time, nor had they been carried
out on a scale large enough to raise them to the dignity of
international precedents. The peculiar glory of Richelieu is, that his
foreign policy was, not occasionally, but invariably, governed by
temporal considerations; nor do I believe that, during the long tenure
of his power, there is to be found the least proof of his regard for
those theological interests, the promotion of which had long been looked
upon as a matter of paramount importance. By thus steadily subordinating
the church to the state; by enforcing the principle of this
subordination, on a large scale, with great ability, and with unvarying
success, he laid the foundation of that purely secular polity, the
consolidation of which has, since his death, been the aim of all the
best European diplomatists. The result was a most salutary change, which
had been for some time preparing, but which, under him, was first
completed. For, by the introduction of this system, an end was put to
religious wars; and the chances of peace were increased, by thus
removing one of the causes to which the interruption of peace had often
been owing.[108] At the same time, there was prepared the way for that
final separation of theology from politics, which it will be the
business of future generations fully to achieve. How great a step had
been taken in this direction, appears from the facility with which the
operations of Richelieu were continued by men every way his inferiors.
Less than two years after his death, there was assembled the Congress of
Westphalia;[109] the members of which concluded that celebrated peace,
which is remarkable, as being the first comprehensive attempt to adjust
the conflicting interests of the leading European countries.[110] In
this important treaty, ecclesiastical interests were altogether
disregarded;[111] and the contracting parties, instead of, as
heretofore, depriving each other of their possessions, took the bolder
course of indemnifying themselves at the expense of the church, and did
not hesitate to seize her revenues, and secularize several of her
bishoprics.[112] From this grievous insult, which became a precedent in
the public law of Europe, the spiritual power has never recovered; and
it is remarked by a very competent authority that, since that period,
diplomatists have, in their official acts, neglected religious
interests, and have preferred the advocacy of matters relating to the
commerce and colonies of their respective countries.[113] The truth of
this observation is confirmed by the interesting fact, that the Thirty
Years' War, to which this same treaty put an end, is the last great
religious war which has ever been waged;[114] no civilized people,
during two centuries, having thought it worth while to peril their own
safety in order to disturb the belief of their neighbours. This, indeed,
is but a part of that vast secular movement, by which superstition has
been weakened, and the civilization of Europe secured. Without, however,
discussing that subject, I will now endeavour to show how the policy of
Richelieu, in regard to the French Protestant church, corresponded with
his policy in regard to the French Catholic church; so, that, in both
departments, this great statesman, aided by that progress of knowledge
for which his age was remarkable, was able to struggle with prejudices
from which men, slowly and with infinite difficulty, were attempting to
emerge.
[108] This change may be illustrated by comparing the work of Grotius
with that of Vattel. These two eminent men are still respected as
the most authoritative expounders of international law; but there
is this important difference between them, that Vattel wrote more
than a century after Grotius, and when the secular principles
enforced by Richelieu had penetrated the minds even of common
politicians. Therefore, Vattel says (_Le Droit des Gens_, vol. i.
pp. 379, 380): 'On demande s'il est permis de faire alliance avec
une nation qui ne professe pas la même religion? Si les traités
faits avec les ennemis de la foi sont valides? Grotius a traité
la question assez au long. Cette discussion pouvait être
nécessaire dans un temps où la fureur des partis obscurcissait
encore des principes qu'elle avait long-temps fait oublier, osons
croire qu'elle serait superflue dans notre siècle. La loi
naturelle seule régit les traités des nations; la différence de
religion y est absolument étrangère.' See also p. 318, and vol.
ii. p. 151. On the other hand, Grotius opposes alliances between
nations of different religion, and says, that nothing can justify
them except 'une extrême nécessité.... Car il faut chercher
premièrement le règne céleste, c'est à dire penser avant toutes
choses à la propagation de l'évangile.' And he further recommends
that princes should follow the advice given on this subject by
Foulques, Archbishop of Rheims! _Grotius_, _le Droit de la Guerre
et de la Paix_, livre ii. chap. xv. sec. xi. vol. i. pp. 485, 486,
edit. Barbeyrac, Amsterdam, 1724, 4to; a passage the more
instructive, because Grotius was a man of great genius and great
humanity. On religious wars, as naturally recognized in barbarous
times, see the curious and important work, _Institutes of
Timour_, pp. 141, 333, 335.
[109] 'Le Congrès de Westphalie s'ouvrit le 10 avril 1643.' _Lavallée_,
_Hist. des Français_, vol. iii. p. 156. Its two great divisions
at Munster and Osnabruck were formed in March 1644. _Flassan_,
_Hist. de la Diplomatie_, vol. iii. p. 110. Richelieu died in
December, 1642. _Biog. Univ._ vol. xxxviii. p. 28.
[110] 'Les règnes de Charles-Quint et de Henri IV font époque pour
certaines parties du droit international; mais le point de départ
le plus saillant, c'est la paix de Westphalie.' _Eschbach_,
_Introduc. à l'Etude du Droit_, Paris, 1846, p. 92. Compare the
remarks on Mably, in _Biog. Univ._ vol. xxvi. p. 7, and
_Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. xxiv. p. 179: 'base au
droit public de l'Europe.'
[111] Compare the indignation of the pope at this treaty (_Vattel_, _le
Droit des Gens_, vol. ii. p. 28), with _Ranke's Päpste_, vol. ii.
p. 576: 'Das religiöse Element ist zurückgetreten; die
politischen Rücksichten beherrschen die Welt:' a summary of the
general state of affairs.
[112] 'La France obtint par ce traité, en indemnité, la souveraineté des
trois évêchés, Metz, Toul et Verdun, ainsi que celle d'Alsace. La
satisfaction ou indemnité des autres parties intéressées fut
convenue, en grande partie, aux dépens de l'église, et moyennant
la sécularisation de plusieurs évêchés et bénéfices
ecclésiastiques.' _Koch_, _Tableau des Révolutions_, vol. i. p.
328.
[113] Dr. Vaughan (_Protectorate of Cromwell_, vol. i. p. civ.) says:
'It is a leading fact, also, in the history of modern Europe,
that, from the peace of Westphalia, in 1648, religion, as the
great object of negotiation, began everywhere to give place to
questions relating to colonies and commerce.' Charles Butler
observed, that this treaty 'considerably lessened the influence
of religion on politics.' _Butler's Reminiscences_, vol. i. p.
181.
[114] The fact of the Thirty Years' War being a religious contest,
formed the basis of one of the charges which the church party
brought against Richelieu: and an author, who wrote in 1634,
'montroit bien au long que l'alliance du roy de France avec les
protestantes étoit contraire aux intérêts de la religion
catholique; parce que la guerre des Provinces Unies, et celle
d'Allemagne étoient des guerres de religion.' _Benoist_, _Hist.
de l'Edit de Nantes_, vol. ii. p. 536.
The treatment of the French Protestants by Richelieu is, undoubtedly,
one of the most honourable parts of his system; and in it, as in other
liberal measures, he was assisted by the course of preceding events. His
administration, taken in connexion with that of Henry IV. and the
queen-regent, presents the noble spectacle of a toleration far more
complete than any which had then been seen in Catholic Europe. While in
other Christian countries, men were being incessantly persecuted,
simply because they held opinions different from those professed by the
established clergy, France refused to follow the general example, and
protected those heretics whom the church was eager to punish. Indeed,
not only were they protected, but, when they possessed abilities, they
were openly rewarded. In addition to their appointments to civil
offices, many of them were advanced to high military posts; and Europe
beheld, with astonishment, the armies of the king of France led by
heretical generals. Rohan, Lesdiguières, Chatillon, La Force, Bernard de
Weimar, were among the most celebrated of the military leaders employed
by Louis XIII.; and all of them were Protestants, as also were some
younger, but distinguished officers, such as Gassion, Rantzau,
Schomberg, and Turenne. For now, nothing was beyond the reach of men
who, half a century earlier, would, on account of their heresies, have
been persecuted to the death. Shortly before the accession of Louis
XIII., Lesdiguières, the ablest general among the French Protestants,
was made marshal of France.[115] Fourteen years later, the same high
dignity was conferred upon two other Protestants, Chatillon and La
Force; the former of whom is said to have been the most influential of
the schismatics.[116] Both these appointments were in 1622;[117] and, in
1634, still greater scandal was caused by the elevation of Sully, who,
notwithstanding his notorious heresy, also received the staff of marshal
of France.[118] This was the work of Richelieu, and it gave serious
offence to the friends of the church; but the great statesman paid so
little attention to their clamour, that, after the civil war was
concluded, he took another step equally obnoxious. The Duke de Rohan was
the most active of all the enemies of the established church, and was
looked up to by the Protestants as the main support of their party. He
had taken up arms in their favour, and, declining to abandon his
religion, had, by the fate of war, been driven from France. But
Richelieu, who was acquainted with his ability, cared little about his
opinions. He, therefore, recalled him from exile, employed him in a
negotiation with Switzerland, and sent him on foreign service, as
commander of one of the armies of the king of France.[119]
[115] According to a contemporary, he received this appointment without
having asked for it: 'sans être à la cour ni l'avoir demandé.'
_Mém. de Fontenay_, _Mareuil_, vol. i. p. 70. In 1622, even the
lieutenants of Lesdiguières were Protestants: 'ses lieutenants,
qui estant tous huguenots.' _Ibid._ vol. i. p. 538. These memoirs
are very valuable in regard to political and military matters;
their author having played a conspicuous part in the transactions
which he describes.
[116] 'Il n'y avoit personne dans le parti huguenot si considérable que
lui.' _Tallemant des Réaux_, _Historiettes_, vol. v. p. 204.
[117] _Biog. Univ._ vol. xv. p. 247; _Benoist_, _Hist. de l'Edit de
Nantes_, vol. ii. p. 400.
[118] Additions to _Sully_, _[OE]conomies Royales_, vol. viii. p.
496; _Smedley's Hist. of the Reformed Religion in France_,
vol. iii. p. 204.
[119] _Capefigue's Richelieu_, vol. ii. p. 57; _Mém. de Rohan_, vol. i.
pp. 66, 69; _Mém. de Bassompierre_, vol. iii. pp. 324, 348; _Mém.
de Montglat_, vol. i. p. 86; _Le Vassor_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_,
vol. vii. p. 157, vol. viii. p. 284. This great rise in the
fortunes of Rohan took place at different times between 1632 and
1635.
Such were the tendencies which characterized this new state of things.
It is hardly necessary to observe how beneficial this great change must
have been; since by it men were encouraged to look to their country as
the first consideration, and, discarding their old disputes, Catholic
soldiers were taught to obey heretical generals, and follow their
standards to victory. In addition to this, the mere social amalgamation,
arising from the professors of different creeds mixing in the same camp,
and fighting under the same banner, must have still further aided to
disarm the mind, partly by merging theological feuds in a common, and
yet a temporal, object, and partly by showing to each sect, that their
religious opponents were not entirely bereft of human virtue; that they
still retained some of the qualities of men; and that it was even
possible to combine the errors of heresy with all the capabilities of a
good and competent citizen.[120]
[120] Late in the sixteenth century, Duplessis Mornay had to state what
was then considered by the majority of men an incredible paradox,
'que ce n'estoit pas chose incompatible d'estre bon huguenot et
bon Françoys tout ensemble.' _Duplessis_, _Mém. et Correspond._
vol. i. p. 146. Compare p. 213, vol. ii. pp. 45, 46, 77, 677,
vol. vii. p. 294, vol. xi. pp. 31, 68; interesting passages for
the history of opinions in France.
But, while the hateful animosities by which France had long been
distracted, were, under the policy of Richelieu, gradually subsiding, it
is singular to observe that, though the prejudices of the Catholics
obviously diminished, those of the Protestants seemed, for a time, to
retain all their activity. It is, indeed, a striking proof of the
perversity and pertinacity of such feelings, that it was precisely in
the country, and at the period, when the Protestants were best treated,
that they displayed most turbulence. And in this, as in all such cases,
the cause principally at work was the influence of that class to which
circumstances, I will now explain, had secured a temporary ascendency.
For, the diminution of the theological spirit had effected in the
Protestants a remarkable but a very natural result. The increasing
toleration of the French government had laid open to their leaders
prizes which before they could never have obtained. As long as all
offices were refused to the Protestant nobles, it was natural that they
should cling with the greater zeal to their own party, by whom alone
their virtues were acknowledged. But, when the principle was once
recognised, that the state would reward men for their abilities, without
regard to their religion, there was introduced into every sect a new
element of discord. The leaders of the Reformers could not fail to feel
some gratitude, or, at all events, some interest for the government
which employed them; and the influence of temporal considerations being
thus strengthened, the influence of religious ties must have been
weakened. It is impossible that opposite feelings should be paramount,
at the same moment, in the same mind. The further men extend their view,
the less they care for each of the details of which the view is
composed. Patriotism is a corrective of superstition; and the more we
feel for our country, the less we feel for our sect. Thus it is, that
in the progress of civilization, the scope of the intellect is widened;
its horizon is enlarged; its sympathies are multiplied; and, as the
range of its excursions is increased, the tenacity of its grasp is
slackened, until, at length, it begins to perceive that the infinite
variety of circumstances necessarily causes an infinite variety of
opinions; that a creed, which is good and natural for one man, may be
bad and unnatural for another; and that, so far from interfering with
the march of religious convictions, we should be content to look into
ourselves, search our own hearts, purge our own souls, soften the evil
of our own passions, and extirpate that insolent and intolerant spirit,
which is at once the cause and the effect of all theological
controversy.
It was in this direction, that a prodigious step was taken by the French
in the first half of the seventeenth century. Unfortunately, however,
the advantages which arose were accompanied by serious drawbacks. From
the introduction of temporal considerations among the Protestant
leaders, there occurred two results of considerable importance. The
first result was, that many of the Protestants changed their religion.
Before the Edict of Nantes, they had been constantly persecuted, and
had, as constantly, increased.[121] But, under the tolerant policy of
Henry IV. and Louis XIII., they continued to diminish.[122] Indeed, this
was the natural consequence of the growth of that secular spirit which,
in every country, has assuaged religious animosities. For, by the action
of that spirit, the influence of social and political views began to
outweigh those theological views to which the minds of men had long been
confined. As these temporal ties increased in strength, there was, of
course, generated among the rival factions an increased tendency to
assimilate; while, as the Catholics were not only much more numerous,
but in every respect, more influential, than their opponents, they
reaped the benefit of this movement, and gradually drew over to their
side many of their former enemies. That this absorption of the smaller
sect into the larger, is due to the cause I have mentioned, is rendered
still more evident by the interesting fact, that the change began among
the heads of the party; and that it was not the inferior Protestants who
first abandoned their leaders, but it was rather the leaders who
deserted their followers. This was because the leaders, being more
educated than the great body of the people, were more susceptible to the
sceptical movement, and therefore set the example of an indifference to
disputes which still engrossed the popular mind. As soon as this
indifference had reached a certain point, the attractions offered by the
conciliating policy of Louis XIII. became irresistible; and the
Protestant nobles, in particular, being most exposed to political
temptations, began to alienate themselves from their own party, in order
to form an alliance with a court which showed itself ready to reward
their merits.
[121] See _Benoist_, _Hist. de l'Edit de Nantes_, vol. i. pp. 10, 14,
18; _De Thou_, _Hist. Univ._ vol. iii. pp. 181, 242, 357, 358,
543, 558, vol. iv. p. 155; _Relat. des Ambassadeurs Vénitiens_,
vol. i. pp. 412, 536, vol. ii. pp. 66, 74; _Ranke's Civil Wars in
France_, vol. i. pp. 279, 280, vol. ii. p. 94.
[122] Compare _Hallam's Const. Hist._ vol. i. p. 173, with _Ranke_, _die
Römischen Päpste_, vol. ii. pp. 477-479. In spite of the increase
of population, the Protestants diminished absolutely, as well as
relatively, to the Catholics. In 1598 they had 760 churches; in
1619 only 700. _Smedley's Hist. of the Reformed Religion in
France_, vol. iii. pp. 46, 145. De Thou, in the preface to his
History (vol. i. p. 320), observes, that the Protestants had
increased during the wars carried on against them, but
'diminuoient en nombre et en crédit pendant la paix.'
It is, of course, impossible to fix the exact period at which this
important change took place.[123] But we may say with certainty, that
very early in the reign of Louis XIII. many of the Protestant nobles
cared nothing for their religion, while the remainder of them ceased to
feel that interest in it which they had formerly expressed. Indeed, some
of the most eminent of them openly abandoned their creed, and joined
that very church which they had been taught to abhor as the man of sin,
and the whore of Babylon. The Duke de Lesdiguières, the greatest of all
the Protestant generals,[124] became a Catholic, and, as a reward for
his conversion, was made constable of France.[125] The Duke de la
Tremouille adopted the same course;[126] as also did the Duke de la
Meilleraye,[127] the Duke de Bouillon,[128] and a few years later the
Marquis de Montausier.[129] These illustrious nobles were among the most
powerful of the members of the Reformed communion; but they quitted it
without compunction, sacrificing their old associations in favour of
the opinions professed by the state. Among the other men of high rank,
who still remained nominally connected with the French Protestants, we
find a similar spirit. We find them lukewarm respecting matters, for
which, if they had been born fifty years earlier, they would have laid
down their lives. The Maréchal de Bouillon, who professed himself to be
a Protestant, was unwilling to change his religion; but he so comported
himself as to show that he considered its interests as subordinate to
political considerations.[130] A similar remark has been made by the
French historians concerning the Duke de Sully and the Marquis de
Chatillon, both of whom, though they were members of the Reformed
church, displayed a marked indifference to those theological interests
which had formerly been objects of supreme importance.[131] The result
was, that when, in 1621, the Protestants began their civil war against
the government, it was found that of all their great leaders, two only,
Rohan and his brother Soubise, were prepared to risk their lives in
support of their religion.[132]
[123] M. Ranke has noticed how the French Protestant nobles fell off
from their party; but he does not seem aware of the remote causes
of what he deems a sudden apostasy: 'In dem nämlichen Momente
trat nun auch die grosse Wendung der Dinge in Frankreich ein.
Fragen wir, woher im Jahr 1621 die Verluste des Protestantismus
hauptsächlich kamen, so war es die Entzweiung derselben, der
Abfall des Adels.' _Ranke_, _die Päpste_, vol. ii. p. 476.
Compare a curious passage in _Benoist_, _Hist. de l'Edit de
Nantes_, vol. ii. p. 33, from which it appears that in 1611 the
French Protestants were breaking into three parties, one of which
consisted of 'les seigneurs d'éminente qualité.'
[124] 'Le plus illustre guerrier du parti protestant.' _Sismondi_,
_Hist. des Français_, vol. xxii. p. 505. In the contemporary
despatches of the Spanish ambassador, he is called 'l'un des
huguenots les plus marquans, homme d'un grand poids, et d'un
grand crédit.' _Capefigue's Richelieu_, vol. i. p. 60. His
principal influence was in Dauphiné. _Benoist_, _Hist. de l'Edit
de Nantes_, vol. i. p. 236.
[125] _Biog. Univ._ vol. xxiv. p. 293; and a dry remark on his
'conversion' in _Mém. de Richelieu_, vol. ii. p. 215, which may
be compared with _[OE]uvres de Voltaire_, vol. xviii. p. 132, and
_Bazin_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. ii. pp. 195-197. Rohan
(_Mém._ vol. i. p. 228) plainly says, 'le duc de Lesdiguières,
ayant hardé sa religion pour la charge de connétable de France.'
See also p. 91, and _Mém. de Montglat_, vol. i. p. 37.
[126] _Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. xxiii. p. 67; _Le Vassor_,
_Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. v. pp. 809, 810, 865.
[127] _Tallemant des Réaux_, _Historiettes_, vol. iii. p. 43. La
Meilleraye was also a duke; and what is far more in his favour,
he was a friend of Descartes. _Biog. Univ._ vol. xxviii. pp. 152,
153.
[128] Sismondi (_Hist. des Français_, vol. xxiii. p. 27) says, 'il
abjura en 1637;' but according to Benoist (_Hist. de l'Edit de
Nantes_, vol. ii. p. 550) it was in 1635.
[129] _Tallemant des Réaux_, _Historiettes_, vol. iii. p. 245. Des
Réaux, who saw these changes constantly happening, simply
observes, 'notre marquis, voyant que sa religion étoit un
obstacle à son dessein, en change.'
[130] 'Mettoit la politique avant la religion.' _Sismondi_, _Hist. des
Français_, vol. xxii. p. 264. This was Henry Bouillon, whom some
writers have confused with Frederick Bouillon. Both of them were
dukes; but Henry, who was the father, and who did not actually
change his religion, was the marshal. The following notices of
him will more than confirm the remark made by Sismondi; _Mém. de
Bassompierre_, vol. i. p. 455; _Smedley's Reformed Religion in
France_, vol. iii. p. 99; _Capefigue's Richelieu_, vol. i. p.
107; _Le Vassor_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. ii. pp. 420, 467,
664, vol. iv. p. 519; _Mém. de Richelieu_, vol. i. p. 104, vol.
ii. p. 259; _Mém. de Duplessis Mornay_, vol. xi. p. 450, vol.
xii. pp. 79, 182, 263, 287, 345, 361, 412, 505.
[131] _Benoist_, _Hist. de l'Edit de Nantes_, vol. i. pp. 121, 298,
vol. ii. pp. 5, 180, 267, 341; _Capefigue's Richelieu_, vol. i.
p. 267; _Felice's Hist. of the Protestants of France_, p. 206.
Sully advised Henry IV., on mere political considerations, to
become a Catholic; and there were strong, but I believe unfounded
rumours, that he himself intended taking the same course. See
_Sully_, _[OE]conomies Royales_, vol. ii. p. 81, vol. vii. pp.
362, 363.
[132] 'There were, among all the leaders, but the Duke de Rohan and his
brother the Duke de Soubise, who showed themselves disposed to
throw their whole fortunes into the new wars of religion.'
_Felice's Hist. of the Protestants of France_, p. 241. For this,
M. Felice, as usual, quotes no authority; but Rohan himself says:
'C'est ce qui s'est passé en cette seconde guerre (1626), où
Rohan et Soubise ont eu pour contraires tous les grands de la
religion de France.' _Mém. de Rohan_, vol. i. p. 278. Rohan
claims great merit for his religious sincerity; though, from a
passage in _Mém. de Fontenay Mareuil_, vol. i. p. 418, and
another in _Benoist_, _Hist. de l'Edit de Nantes_, vol. ii. p.
173, one may be allowed to doubt if he were so single-minded as
is commonly supposed.
Thus it was, that the first great consequence of the tolerating policy
of the French government was to deprive the Protestants of the support
of their former leaders, and, in several instances, even to turn their
sympathies on the side of the Catholic church. But the other
consequence, to which I have alluded, was one of far greater moment. The
growing indifference of the higher classes of Protestants threw the
management of their party into the hands of the clergy. The post, which
was deserted by the secular leaders, was naturally seized by the
spiritual leaders. And as, in every sect, the clergy, as a body, have
always been remarkable for their intolerance of opinions different to
their own, it followed, that this change infused into the now mutilated
ranks of the Protestants an acrimony not inferior to that of the worst
times of the sixteenth century.[133] Hence it was, that by a singular,
but perfectly natural combination, the Protestants, who professed to
take their stand on the right of private judgment, became, early in the
seventeenth century, more intolerant than the Catholics, who based their
religion on the dictates of an infallible church.
[133] Sismondi notices this remarkable change; though he places it a few
years earlier than the contemporary writers do: 'Depuis que les
grands seigneurs s'étoient éloignés deg églises, c'étoient les
ministres qui étoient devenus les chefs, les représentans et les
démagogues des huguenots; et ils apportoient dans leurs
délibérations cette âpreté et cette inflexibilité théologiques
qui semblent caractériser les prêtres de toutes les religions, et
qui donnent à leurs haines une amertume plus offensante.'
_Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. xxii. p. 87. Compare p.
478. In 1621, 'Rohan lui-même voyait continuellement ses
opérations contrariées par le conseil-général des églises.'
_Lavallée_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. iii. p. 88. In the same
year, M. Capefigue (_Richelieu_, vol. i. p. 271) says, 'Le parti
modéré cessa d'avoir action sur le prêche; la direction des
forces huguenotes, était passée dans les mains des ardents,
conduits par les ministres.'
This is one of the many instances which show how superficial is the
opinion of those speculative writers, who believe that the Protestant
religion is necessarily more liberal than the Catholic. If those who
adopt this view had taken the pains to study the history of Europe in
its original sources, they would have learned, that the liberality of
every sect depends, not at all on its avowed tenets, but on the
circumstances in which it is placed, and on the amount of authority
possessed by its priesthood. The Protestant religion is, for the most
part, more tolerant than the Catholic, simply because the events which
have given rise to Protestantism have at the same time increased the
play of the intellect, and therefore lessened the power of the clergy.
But whoever has read the works of the great Calvinist divines, and above
all, whoever has studied their history, must know, that in the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries, the desire of persecuting their opponents
burnt as hotly among them, as it did among any of the Catholics even in
the worst days of the papal dominion. This is a mere matter of fact, of
which any one may satisfy himself, by consulting the original documents
of those times. And even now, there is more superstition, more bigotry,
and less of the charity of real religion, among the lower order of
Scotch Protestants, than there is among the lower order of French
Catholics. Yet for one intolerant passage in Protestant theology, it
would be easy to point out twenty in Catholic theology. The truth,
however, is, that the actions of men are governed, not by dogmas, and
text-books, and rubrics, but by the opinions and habits of their
contemporaries, by the general spirit of their age, and by the character
of those classes who are in the ascendant. This seems to be the origin
of that difference between religious theory and religious practice, of
which theologians greatly complain as a stumbling-block and an evil.
For, religious theories being preserved in books, in a doctrinal and
dogmatic form, remain a perpetual witness, and, therefore cannot be
changed without incurring the obvious charge of inconsistency, or of
heresy. But the practical part of every religion, its moral, political,
and social workings, embrace such an immense variety of interests, and
have to do with such complicated and shifting agencies, that it is
hopeless to fix them by formularies: they, even in the most rigid
systems, are left, in a great measure, to private discretion; and, being
almost entirely unwritten, they lack those precautions by which the
permanence of dogmas is effectually secured.[134] Hence it is, that
while the religious doctrines professed by a people in their national
creed are no criterion of their civilization, their religious practice
is, on the other hand, so pliant and so capable of adaptation to social
wants, that it forms one of the best standards by which the spirit of
any age can be measured.
[134] The church of Rome has always seen this, and on that account has
been, and still is, very pliant in regard to morals, and very
inflexible in regard to dogmas; a striking proof of the great
sagacity with which her affairs are administered. In _Blanco
White's Evidence against Catholicism_, p. 48, and in _Parr's
Works_, vol. vii. pp. 454, 455, there is an unfavourable and,
indeed, an unjust notice of this peculiarity, which, though
strongly marked in the Romish church, is by no means confined to
it, but is found in every religious sect which is regularly
organized. Locke, in his _Letters on Toleration_, observes, that
the clergy are naturally more eager against error than against
vice (_Works_, vol. v. pp. 6, 7, 241); and their preference of
dogmas to moral truths is also mentioned by M. C. Comte, _Traité
de Législat._ vol. i. p. 245; and is alluded to by Kant in his
comparison of 'ein moralischer Katechismus' with a
'Religionskatechismus.' _Die Metaphysik der Sitten_ (_Ethische
Methodenlehre_), in _Kant's Werke_, vol. v. p. 321. Compare
_Temple's Observations upon the United Provinces_, in _Works of
Sir W. Temple_, vol. i. p. 154, with the strict adhesion to
formularies noticed in _Ward's Ideal Church_, p. 358; and
analogous cases in _Mill's Hist. of India_, vol. i. pp. 399, 400,
and in _Wilkinson's Ancient Egyptians_, vol. iii. p. 87; also
_Combe's Notes on the United States_, vol. iii. pp. 256, 257.
It is on account of these things, that we ought not to be surprised
that, during many years, the French Protestants, who affected to appeal
to the right of private judgment, were more intolerant of the exercise
of that judgment by their adversaries than were the Catholics; although
the Catholics, by recognising an infallible church, ought, in
consistency, to be superstitious, and may be said to inherit intolerance
as their natural birthright.[135] Thus, while the Catholics were
theoretically more bigoted than the Protestants, the Protestants became
practically more bigoted than the Catholics. The Protestants continued
to insist upon that right of private judgment in religion, which the
Catholics continued to deny. Yet, such was the force of circumstances,
that each sect, in its practice, contradicted its own dogma, and acted
as if it had embraced the dogma of its opponents. The cause of this
change was very simple. Among the French, the theological spirit, as we
have already seen, was decaying; and the decline of the influence of the
clergy was, as invariably happens, accompanied by an increase of
toleration. But, among the French Protestants, this partial diminution
of the theological spirit had produced different consequences; because
it had brought about a change of leaders, which threw the command into
the hands of the clergy, and, by increasing their power, provoked a
reaction, and revived those very feelings to the decay of which the
reaction owed its origin. This seems to explain how it is, that a
religion, which is not protected by the government, usually displays
greater energy and greater vitality than one which is so protected. In
the progress of society, the theological spirit first declines among the
most educated classes; and then it is that the government can step in,
as it does in England, and, controlling the clergy, make the church a
creature of the state; thus weakening the ecclesiastical element by
tempering it with secular considerations. But, when the state refuses to
do this, the reins of power, as they fall from the hands of the upper
classes, are seized by the clergy, and there arises a state of things
of which the French Protestants in the seventeenth century, and the
Irish Catholics in our own time, form the best illustration. In such
cases, it will always happen, that the religion which is tolerated by
the government, though not fully recognised by it, will the longest
retain its vitality; because its priesthood, neglected by the state,
must cling closer to the people, in whom alone is the source of their
power.[136] On the other hand, in a religion which is favoured and
richly endowed by the state, the union between the priesthood and
inferior laity will be less intimate; the clergy will look to the
government as well as to the people; and the interference of political
views, of considerations of temporal expediency, and, if it may be added
without irreverence, the hopes of promotion will secularize the
ecclesiastical spirit,[137] and, according to the process I have already
traced, will thus hasten the march of toleration.
[135] Blanco White (_Evidence against Catholicism_, p. vi.) harshly
says, '_sincere_ Roman Catholics cannot conscientiously be
tolerant.' But he is certainly mistaken; for the question is one,
not of sincerity, but of consistency. A sincere Roman Catholic
may be, and often is, conscientiously tolerant; a consistent
Roman Catholic, never.
[136] We also see this very clearly in England, where the dissenting
clergy have much more influence among their hearers than the
clergy of the Establishment have among theirs. This has often
been noticed by impartial observers, and we are now possessed of
statistical proof that 'the great body of Protestant dissenters
are more assiduous' in attending religious worship than churchmen
are. See a valuable essay by Mr. Mann _On the Statistical
Position of Religious Bodies in England and Wales_, in _Journal
of Statist. Soc._ vol. xviii. p. 152.
[137] Respecting the working of this in England, there are some shrewd
remarks made by Le Blanc in his _Lettres d'un François_, vol. i.
pp. 267, 268; which may be compared with _Lord Holland's Mem. of
the Whig Party_, vol. ii. p. 253, where it is suggested, that in
the case of complete emancipation of the Catholics, 'eligibility
to worldly honours and profits would somewhat abate the fever of
religious zeal.' On this, there are observations worth attending
to in _Lord Cloncurry's Recollections_, Dublin, 1849, pp. 342,
343.
These generalizations, which account for a great part of the present
superstition of the Irish Catholics, will also account for the former
superstition of the French Protestants. In both cases, the government
disdaining the supervision of an heretical religion, allowed supreme
authority to fall into the hands of the priesthood, who stimulated the
bigotry of men, and encouraged them in a hatred of their opponents.
What the results of this are in Ireland, is best known to those of our
statesmen, who, with unusual candour, have declared Ireland to be their
greatest difficulty. What the results were in France, we will now
endeavour to ascertain.
The conciliating spirit of the French government having drawn over to
its side some of the most eminent of the French Protestants, and having
disarmed the hostility of others, the leadership of the party fell, as
we have already seen, into the hands of those inferior men, who
displayed in their new position the intolerance characteristic of their
order. Without pretending to write a history of the odious feuds that
now arose, I will lay before the reader some evidence of their
increasing bitterness; and I will point out a few of the steps by which
the angry feelings of religious controversy became so inflamed, that at
length they kindled a civil war, which nothing but the improved temper
of the Catholics prevented from being as sanguinary as were the horrible
struggles of the sixteenth century. For, when the French Protestants
became governed by men whose professional habits made them consider
heresy to be the greatest of crimes, there naturally sprung up a
missionary and proselytizing spirit, which induced them to interfere
with the religion of the Catholics, and, under the old pretence of
turning them from the error of their ways, revived those animosities
which the progress of knowledge tended to appease. And as, under such
guidance, these feelings quickly increased, the Protestants soon learned
to despise that great Edict of Nantes, by which their liberties were
secured; and they embarked in a dangerous contest, in which their object
was, not to protect their own religion, but to weaken the religion of
that very party to whom they owed a toleration, which had been
reluctantly conceded by the prejudices of the age.
It was stipulated, in the Edict of Nantes, that the Protestants should
enjoy the full exercise of their religion; and this right they continued
to possess until the reign of Louis XIV. To this there were added
several other privileges, such as no Catholic Government, except that
of France, would then have granted to its heretical subjects. But these
things did not satisfy the desires of the Protestant clergy. They were
not content to exercise their own religion, unless they could also
trouble the religion of others. Their first step was, to call upon the
government to limit the performance of those rites which the French
Catholics had long revered as emblems of the national faith. For this
purpose, directly after the death of Henry IV. they held a great
assembly at Saumur, in which they formally demanded that no Catholic
processions should be allowed in any town, place, or castle occupied by
the Protestants.[138] As the government did not seem inclined to
countenance this monstrous pretension, these intolerant sectaries took
the law into their own hands. They not only attacked the Catholic
processions wherever they met them, but they subjected the priests to
personal insults, and even endeavoured to prevent them from
administering the sacrament to the sick. If a Catholic clergyman was
engaged in burying the dead, the Protestants were sure to be present,
interrupting the funeral, turning the ceremonies into ridicule, and
attempting, by their clamour, to deaden the voice of the minister, so
that the service performed in the church should not be heard.[139] Nor
did they always confine themselves even to such demonstrations as these.
For, certain towns having been, perhaps imprudently, placed under their
control, they exercised their authority in them with the most wanton
insolence. At La Rochelle, which for importance was the second city in
the kingdom, they would not permit the Catholics to have even a single
church in which to celebrate what for centuries had been the sole
religion of France, and was still the religion of an enormous majority
of Frenchmen.[140] This, however, only formed part of a system, by which
the Protestant clergy hoped to trample on the rights of their
fellow-subjects. In 1619, they ordered in their general assembly at
Loudun, that in none of the Protestant towns should there be a sermon
preached by a Jesuit, or indeed by any ecclesiastical person
commissioned by a bishop.[141] In another assembly, they forbade any
Protestant even to be present at a baptism, or at a marriage, or at a
funeral, if the ceremony was performed by a Catholic priest.[142] And,
as if to cut off all hope of reconciliation, they not only vehemently
opposed those intermarriages between the two parties, by which, in every
Christian country, religious animosities have been softened, but they
publicly declared, that they would withhold the sacrament from any
parents whose children were married into a Catholic family.[143] Not,
however, to accumulate unnecessary evidence, there is one other
circumstance worth relating, as a proof of the spirit with which these
and similar regulations were enforced. When Louis XIII., in 1620,
visited Pau, he was not only treated with indignity, as being an
heretical prince, but he found that the Protestants had not left him a
single church, not one place, in which the king of France, in his own
territory, could perform those devotions which he believed necessary
for his future salvation.[144]
[138] 'Les processions catholiques seraient interdites dans toutes les
places, villes et châteaux occupés par ceux de la religion.'
_Capefigue's Richelieu_, vol. i. p. 39.
[139] Of these facts we have the most unequivocal proof; for they were
not only stated by the Catholics in 1623, but they are recorded,
without being denied, by the Protestant historian Benoist: 'On y
accusoit les Réformez d'injurier les prêtres, quand ils les
voyoient passer; d'empêcher les processions des Catholiques;
l'administration des sacremens aux malades; l'enterrement des
morts avec les cérémonies accoutumées; ... que les Réformez
s'étoient emparez des cloches en quelques lieux, et en d'autres
se serroient de celles des Catholiques pour avertir de l'heure du
prêche; qu'ils affectoient de faire du bruit autour des églises
pendant le service; qu'ils tournoient en dérision les cérémonies
de l'église romaine.' _Benoist_, _Hist. de l'Edit de Nantes_,
vol. ii. pp. 433, 434; see also pp. 149, 150.
[140] 'On pouvait dire que La Rochelle était la capitale, le saint
temple du calvinisme; car on ne voyait là aucune église, aucune
cérémonie papiste.' _Capefigue's Richelieu_, vol. i. p. 342.
[141] _Mém. de Richelieu_, vol. ii. p. 100. For other and similar
evidence, see _Duplessis Mornay_, _Mémoires_, vol. xi. p. 244;
_Sully_, _[OE]conomies Royales_, vol. vii. p. 164; _Benoist_,
_Hist. de l'Edit de Nantes_, vol. ii. pp. 70, 233, 279.
[142] _Quick's Synodicon in Gallia_, vol. ii. p. 196.
[143] For a striking instance of the actual enforcement of this
intolerant regulation, see _Quick's Synodicon in Gallia_,
vol. ii. p. 344.
[144] _Bazin_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. ii. p. 124; _Mém. de
Richelieu_, vol. ii. pp. 109, 110; _Felice's Hist. of the
Protestants of France_, p. 238.
This was the way in which the French Protestants, influenced by their
new leaders, treated the first Catholic government which abstained from
persecuting them; the first which not only allowed them the free
exercise of their religion, but even advanced many of them to offices of
trust and of honour.[145] All this, however, was only of a piece with
the rest of their conduct. They, who in numbers and in intellect formed
a miserable minority of the French nation, claimed a power which the
majority had abandoned, and refused to concede to others the toleration
they themselves enjoyed. Several persons, who had joined their party,
now quitted it, and returned to the Catholic church; but for exercising
this undoubted right, they were insulted by the Protestant clergy in the
grossest manner, with every term of opprobrium and abuse.[146] For those
who resisted their authority, no treatment was considered too severe. In
1612, Ferrier, a man of some reputation in his own day, having disobeyed
their injunctions, was ordered to appear before one of their synods. The
gist of his offence was, that he had spoken contemptuously of
ecclesiastical assemblies; and to this there were, of course, added
those accusations against his moral conduct, with which theologians
often attempt to blacken the character of their opponents.[147] Readers
of ecclesiastical history are too familiar with such charges to attach
any importance to them; but as, in this case, the accused was tried by
men who were at once his prosecutors, his enemies, and his judges, the
result was easy to anticipate. In 1613 Ferrier was excommunicated, and
the excommunication was publicly proclaimed in the church of Nîmes. In
this sentence, which is still extant, he is declared by the clergy to be
'a scandalous man, a person incorrigible, impenitent and ungovernable.'
We, therefore, they add, 'in the name and power of our Lord Jesus
Christ, by the conduct of the Holy Ghost, and with authority from the
church, have cast, and do now cast and throw him out of the society of
the faithful, that he may be delivered up unto Satan.'[148]
[145] In 1625, Howell writes that the Protestants had put up an
inscription on the gates of Montauban, 'Roy sans foy, ville sans
peur.' _Howell's Letters_, p. 178.
[146] Sometimes they were called dogs returning to the vomit of popery;
sometimes they were swine wallowing in the mire of idolatry.
_Quick's Synodicon in Gallia_, vol. i. pp. 385, 398.
[147] It is observable, that on the first occasion (_Quick's Synodicon_,
vol. i. p. 362) nothing is said of Ferrier's immorality; and on
the next occasion (p. 449) the synod complains, among other
things, that 'he hath most licentiously inveighed against, and
satirically lampooned, the ecclesiastical assemblies.'
[148] See this frightful and impious document, in _Quick's Synodicon_,
vol. i. pp. 448, 450.
That he may be delivered up unto Satan! This was the penalty which a
handful of clergymen, in a corner of France, thought they could inflict
on a man who dared to despise their authority. In our time such an
anathema would only excite derision;[149] but, early in the seventeenth
century, the open promulgation of it was enough to ruin any private
person against whom it might be directed. And they whose studies have
enabled them to take the measure of the ecclesiastical spirit will
easily believe that, in that age, the threat did not remain a dead
letter. The people, inflamed by their clergy, rose against Ferrier,
attacked his family, destroyed his property, sacked and gutted his
houses, and demanded with loud cries, that the 'traitor Judas' should be
given up to them. The unhappy man, with the greatest difficulty,
effected his escape; but though he saved his life by flying in the dead
of the night, he was obliged to abandon for ever his native town, as he
dared not return to a place where he had provoked so active and so
implacable a party.[150]
[149] The notion of theologians respecting excommunication may be seen
in Mr. Palmer's entertaining book, _Treatise on the Church_, vol.
i. pp. 64, 67, vol. ii. pp. 299, 300; but the opinions of this
engaging writer should be contrasted with the indignant language
of Vattel, _Le Droit des Gens_, vol. i. pp. 177, 178. In England,
the terrors of excommunication fell into contempt towards the end
of the seventeenth century. See _Life of Archbishop Sharpe_,
edited by Newcome, vol. i. p. 216: compare p. 363; and see the
mournful remarks of Dr. Mosheim, in his _Eccles. Hist._ vol. ii.
p. 79; and _Sir Philip Warwick's Memoirs_, pp. 175, 176.
[150] On the treatment of Ferrier, which excited great attention as
indicating the extreme lengths to which the Protestants were
prepared to go, see _Mém. de Richelieu_, vol. i. p. 177; _Mém. de
Pontchartrain_, vol. ii. pp. 5, 6, 12, 29, 32; _Mém. de Duplessis
Mornay_, vol. xii. pp. 317, 333, 341, 350, 389, 399, 430;
_Felice's Hist. of the Protestants of France_, p. 235; _Biog.
Univ._ vol. xiv. p. 440; _Tallemant des Réaux_, _Historiettes_,
vol. v. pp. 48-54. Mr. Smedley, who refers to none of these
authorities, except two passages in Duplessis, has given a
garbled account of this riot. See his _History of the Reformed
Religion in France_, vol. iii. pp. 119, 120.
Into other matters, and even into those connected with the ordinary
functions of government, the Protestants carried the same spirit.
Although they formed so small a section of the people, they attempted to
control the administration of the crown, and, by the use of threats,
turn all its acts to their own favour. They would not allow the state to
determine what ecclesiastical councils it should recognize; they would
not even permit the king to choose his own wife. In 1615, without the
least pretence of complaint, they assembled in large numbers at Grenoble
and at Nîmes.[151] The deputies of Grenoble insisted that government
should refuse to acknowledge the Council of Trent;[152] and both
assemblies ordered that the Protestants should prevent the marriage of
Louis XIII. with a Spanish princess.[153] They laid similar claims to
interfere with the disposal of civil and military offices. Shortly after
the death of Henry IV., they, in an assembly at Saumur, insisted that
Sully should be restored to some posts from which, in their opinion, he
had been unjustly removed.[154] In 1619, another of their assemblies at
London declared, that as one of the Protestant councillors of the
Parliament of Paris had become a Catholic, he must be dismissed; and
they demanded that, for the same reason, the government of Lectoure
should be taken from Fontrailles, he also having adopted the not
infrequent example of abandoning his sect in order to adopt a creed
sanctioned by the state.[155]
[151] _Capefigue's Richelieu_, vol. i. p. 123.
[152] _Capefigue_, vol. i. p. 123; _Bazin_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_,
vol. i. p. 364; _Benoist_, _Hist. de l'Edit de Nantes_, vol. ii.
p. 183; _Mém. de Rohan_, vol. i. p. 130.
[153] _Capefigue's Richelieu_, vol. i. p. 124; _Mém. de Pontchartrain_,
vol. ii. p. 100; _Le Vassor_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. ii. pp.
333, 334. The consequence was, that the king was obliged to send
a powerful escort to protect his bride against his Protestant
subjects. _Mém. de Richelieu_, vol. i. p. 274.
[154] _Capefigue's Richelieu_, vol. i. p. 38; _Benoist_, _Hist. de
l'Edit de Nantes_, vol. ii. pp. 28, 29, 63.
[155] _Mém. de Fontenay Mareuil_, vol. i. p. 450; _Mém. de
Bassompierre_, vol. ii. p. 161. See a similar instance, in the
case of Berger, in _Benoist_, _Hist. de l'Edit de Nantes_, vol.
ii. p. 136, whom the Protestants sought to deprive because 'il
avoit quitté leur religion.'
By way of aiding all this, and with the view of exasperating still
further religious animosities, the principal Protestant clergy put forth
a series of works, which, for bitterness of feeling, have hardly ever
been equalled, and which it would certainly be impossible to surpass.
The intense hatred with which they regarded their Catholic countrymen
can only be fully estimated by those who have looked into the pamphlets
written by the French Protestants during the first half of the
seventeenth century, or who have read the laboured and formal treatises
of such men as Chamier, Drelincourt, Moulin, Thomson, and Vignier.
Without, however, pausing on these, it will perhaps be thought
sufficient if, for the sake of brevity, I follow the mere outline of
political events. Great numbers of the Protestants had joined in the
rebellion which, in 1615, was raised by Condé;[156] and, although they
were then easily defeated, they seemed bent on trying the issue of a
fresh struggle. In Béarn, where they were unusually numerous,[157] they,
even during the reign of Henry IV., had refused to tolerate the Catholic
religion; 'their fanatical clergy,' says the historian of France,
'declaring that it would be a crime to permit the idolatry of the
mass.'[158] This charitable maxim they for many years actively enforced,
seizing the property of the Catholic clergy, and employing it in support
of their own churches;[159] so that, while in one part of the dominions
of the king of France the Protestants were allowed to exercise their
religion, they, in another part of his dominions, prevented the
Catholics from exercising theirs. It was hardly to be expected that any
government would suffer such an anomaly as this; and, in 1618, it was
ordered that the Protestants should restore the plunder, and reinstate
the Catholics in their former possessions. But the reformed clergy,
alarmed at so sacrilegious a proposal, appointed a public fast, and
inspiriting the people to resistance, forced the royal commissioner to
fly from Pau, where he had arrived in the hope of effecting a peaceful
adjustment of the claims of the rival parties.[160]
[156] _Bazin_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. i. p. 381. Sismondi (_Hist.
des Français_, vol. xxii. p. 349) says that they had no good
reason for this; and it is certain that their privileges, so far
from being diminished since the Edict of Nantes, had been
confirmed and extended.
[157] M. Felice (_Hist. of the Protestants of France_, p. 237) says of
Lower Navarre and Béarn, in 1617: 'Three-fourths of the
population, some say nine-tenths, belonged to the reformed
communion.' This is perhaps overestimated; but we know, from De
Thou, that they formed a majority in Béarn in 1566: 'Les
Protestans y fussent en plus grand nombre que les Catholiques.'
_De Thou_, _Hist. Univ._ vol. v. p. 187.
[158] 'Les ministres fanatiques déclaroient qu'ils ne pouvaient sans
crime souffrir dans ce pays régénéré l'idolâtrie de la messe.'
_Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. xxii. p. 415.
[159] _Notice sur les Mémoires de Rohan_, vol. i. p. 26. Compare the
account given by Pontchartrain, who was one of the ministers of
Louis XIII. _Mém. de Pontchartrain_, vol. ii. pp. 248, 264; and
see _Mém. de Richelieu_, vol. i. p. 443.
[160] _Bazin_, _Hist. de France sous Louis XIII_, vol. ii. pp. 62-64.
The pith of the question was, that 'l'édit de Nantes ayant donné
pouvoir, tant aux catholiques qu'aux huguenots, de rentrer
partout dans leurs biens, les ecclésiastiques de Béarn
démanderent aussytôt les leurs.' _Mém. de Fontenay Mareuil_, vol.
i. p. 392.
The rebellion thus raised by the zeal of the Protestants, was soon put
down; but, according to the confession of Rohan, one of the ablest of
their leaders, it was the beginning of all their misfortunes.[161] The
sword had now been drawn; and the only question to be decided was,
whether France should be governed according to the principles of
toleration recently established, or according to the maxims of a
despotic sect, which, while professing to advocate the right of private
judgment, was acting in a way that rendered all private judgment
impossible.
[161] 'L'affaire de Béarn, source de tous nos maux.' _Mém. de Rohan_,
vol. i. p. 156; see also p. 183. And the Protestant Le Vassor
says (_Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. iii. p. 634): 'L'affaire du
Béarn et l'assemblée qui se convoqua ensuite à la Rochelle, sont
la source véritable des malheurs des églises réformées de France
sous le règne dont j'écris l'histoire.'
Scarcely was the war in Béarn brought to an end, when the Protestants
determined on making a great effort in the west of France.[162] The seat
of this new struggle was Rochelle, which was one of the strongest
fortresses in Europe, and was entirely in the hands of the
Protestants,[163] who had grown wealthy, partly by their own industry
and partly by following the occupation of public pirates.[164] In this
city, which they believed to be impregnable,[165] they, in December,
1620, held a Great Assembly, to which their spiritual chiefs flocked
from all parts of France. It was soon evident that their party was now
governed by men who were bent on the most violent measures. Their great
secular leaders were, as we have already seen, gradually falling off;
and, by this time, there only remained two of much ability, Rohan and
Mornay, both of whom saw the inexpediency of their proceedings, and
desired that the assembly should peaceably separate.[166] But the
authority of the clergy was irresistible; and, by their prayers and
exhortations, they easily gained over the ordinary citizens, who were
then a gross and uneducated body.[167] Under their influence, the
Assembly adopted a course which rendered civil war inevitable. Their
first act was an edict, by which they at once confiscated all the
property belonging to Catholic churches.[168] They then caused a great
seal to be struck; under the authority of which they ordered that the
people should be armed, and taxes collected from them for the purpose of
defending their religion.[169] Finally, they drew up the regulations,
and organized the establishment of what they called the Reformed
Churches of France and of Béarn; and, with a view to facilitate the
exercise of their spiritual jurisdiction, they parcelled out France into
eight circles, to each of which there was allotted a separate general,
who, however, was to be accompanied by a clergyman, since the
administration, in all its parts, was held responsible to that
ecclesiastical assembly which called it into existence.[170]
[162] On the connexion between the proceedings of Béarn and those of
Rochelle, compare _Mém. de Montglat_, vol. i. p. 33, with _Mém.
de Richelieu_, vol. ii. p. 113, and _Mém. de Rohan_, vol. i. p.
446.
[163] Their first church was established in 1556 (_Ranke's Civil Wars in
France_, vol. i. p. 360); but, by the reign of Charles IX. the
majority of the inhabitants were Protestants. See _De Thou_,
_Hist. Univ._ vol. iv. p. 263, vol. v. p. 379, ad. ann. 1562 and
1567.
[164] Or, as M. Capefigue courteously puts it, 'les Rochelois ne
respectaient pas toujours les pavillons amis.' _Capefigue's
Richelieu_, vol. i. p. 332. A delicate circumlocution, unknown to
Mezeray who says (_Hist. de France_, vol. iii. p. 426) in 1587:
'et les Rochelois, qui par le moyen du commerce et de la
_piraterie_,' &c.
[165] 'Ceste place, que les huguenots tenoient quasy pour imprenable.'
_Mém. de Fontenay Mareuil_, vol. i. p. 512. 'Cette orgueilleuse
cité, qui se croyoit imprenable.' _Mém. de Montglat_, vol. i. p.
45. Howell, who visited Rochelle in 1620 and 1622, was greatly
struck by its strength. _Howell's Letters_, pp. 46, 47, 108. At
p. 204, he calls it, in his barbarous style, 'the chiefest
propugnacle of the Protestants there.' For a description of the
defences of Rochelle, see _De Thou_, _Hist. Univ._ vol. vi. pp.
615-617; and some details worth consulting in _Mezeray_, _Hist.
de France_, vol. ii. pp. 977-980.
[166] _Bazin_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. ii. p. 139; _Sismondi, Hist.
des Français_, vol. xxii. pp. 480, 481. Rohan himself says
(_Mém._ vol. i. p. 446): 'je m'efforçai de la séparer.' In a
remarkable letter, which Mornay wrote ten years before this, he
shows his apprehensions of the evil that would result from the
increasing violence of his party; and he advises, 'que nostre
zèle soit tempéré de prudence.' _Mém. et Correspond._ vol. xi. p.
122; and as to the divisions this caused among the Protestants,
see pp. 154, 510, vol. xii. pp. 82, 255; and _Sully_,
_[OE]conomies Royales_, vol. ix. pp. 350, 435.
[167] 'Les seigneurs du parti, et surtout le sage Duplessis Mornay,
firent ce qu'ils purent pour engager les réformés à ne pas
provoquer l'autorité royale pour des causes qui ne pouvoient
justifier une guerre civile; mais le pouvoir dans le parti avoit
passé presque absolument aux bourgeois des villes et aux
ministres qui se livroient aveuglement à leur fanatisme, et à
leur orgueil, et qui étoient d'autant plus applaudis qu'ils
montroient plus de violence.' _Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_,
vol. xxii. p. 478.
[168] 'On confisqua les biens des églises catholiques.' _Lavallée des
Français_, vol. iii. p. 85: and see _Capefigue's Richelieu_,
vol. i. p. 258.
[169] 'Ils donnent des commissions d'armer et de faire des impositions
sur le peuple, et ce sous leur grand sceau, qui étoit une
Religion appuyée sur une croix, ayant en la main un livre de
l'évangile, foulant aux pieds un vieux squelette, qu'ils disoient
être l'église romaine.' _Mém. de Richelieu_, vol. ii. p. 120. M.
Capefigue (_Richelieu_, vol. i. p. 259) says that this seal still
exists; but it is not even alluded to by a late writer (_Felice_,
_Hist. of the Protestants of France_, p. 240), who systematically
suppresses every fact unfavourable to his own party.
[170] _Le Vassor_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. iv. p. 157; _Bazin_,
_Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. ii. p. 145; _Benoist_, _Hist. de
l'Edit de Nantes_, vol. ii. pp. 353-355; _Capefigue's Richelieu_,
vol. i. p. 258.
Such were the forms and pomp of authority assumed by the spiritual
leaders of the French Protestants; men by nature destined to obscurity,
and whose abilities were so despicable, that, notwithstanding their
temporary importance, they have left no name in history. These
insignificant priests, who, at the best, were only fit to mount the
pulpit of a country village, now arrogated to themselves the right of
ordering the affairs of France, imposing taxes upon Frenchmen,
confiscating property, raising troops, levying war; and all this for the
sake of propagating a creed, which was scouted by the country at large
as a foul and mischievous heresy.
In the face of these inordinate pretensions, it was evident that the
French government had no choice, except to abdicate its functions, or
else take arms in its own defence.[171] Whatever may be the popular
notion respecting the necessary intolerance of the Catholics, it is an
indisputable fact, that, early in the seventeenth century, they
displayed in France a spirit of forbearance, and a Christian charity, to
which the Protestants could make no pretence. During the twenty-two
years which elapsed between the Edict of Nantes and the Assembly of
Rochelle, the government, notwithstanding repeated provocations, never
attacked the Protestants;[172] nor did they make any attempt to destroy
the privileges of a sect, which they were bound to consider heretical,
and the extirpation of which had been deemed by their fathers to be one
of the first duties of a Christian statesman.
[171] Even Mosheim, who, as a Protestant, was naturally prejudiced in
favour of the Huguenots, says, that they had established
'imperium in imperio;' and he ascribes to the violence of their
rulers the war of 1621. _Mosheim's Eccles. Hist._ vol. ii.
pp. 237, 238.
[172] Compare _Mém. de Fontenay Mareuil_, vol. ii. p. 88, with
_Flassan_, _Hist. de la Diplomatie Française_, vol. ii. p. 351.
The war that now broke out lasted seven years, and was uninterrupted,
except by the short peace, first of Montpelier, and afterwards of
Rochelle; neither of which, however, was very strictly preserved. But
the difference in the views and intentions of the two parties
corresponded to the difference between the classes which governed them.
The Protestants, being influenced mainly by the clergy, made their
object religious domination. The Catholics being led by statesmen, aimed
at temporal advantages. Thus it was, that circumstances had in France so
completely obliterated the original tendency of these two great sects,
that, by a singular metamorphosis, the secular principle was now
represented by the Catholics, and the theological principle by the
Protestants. The authority of the clergy, and therefore the interests of
superstition, were upheld by that very party which owed its origin to
the diminution of both; they were, on the other hand, attacked by a
party whose success had hitherto depended on the increase of both. If
the Catholics triumphed, the ecclesiastical power would be weakened; if
the Protestants triumphed, it would be strengthened. Of this fact, so
far as the Protestants are concerned, I have just given ample proof,
collected from their proceedings, and from the language of their own
synods. And that the opposite, or secular principle, predominated among
the Catholics, is evident, not only from their undeviating policy in the
reigns of Henry IV. and Louis XIII., but also from another circumstance
worthy of note. For, their motives were so obvious, and gave such
scandal to the church, that the pope, as the great protector of
religion, thought himself bound to reprehend that disregard of
theological interests which they displayed, and which he considered to
be a crying and unpardonable offence. In 1622, only one year after the
struggle between the Protestants and Catholics had begun, he strongly
remonstrated with the French government upon the notorious indecency of
which they were guilty, in carrying on war against heretics, not for the
purpose of suppressing the heresy, but merely with a view of procuring
for the state those temporal advantages which, in the opinion of all
pious men, ought to be regarded as of subordinate importance.[173]
[173] See the paper of instructions from Pope Gregory XV. in the
appendix to _Ranke_, _die Röm. Päpste_, vol. iii. pp. 173, 174:
'Die Hauptsache aber ist was er dem Könige von Frankreich
vorstellen soll: 1, dass er ja nicht den Verdacht auf sich laden
werde als verfolge er die Protestanten bloss aus
Staatsinteresse.' Bazin (_Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. ii. p. 320)
says, that Richelieu attacked the Huguenots 'sans aucune idée de
persécution religieuse.' See, to the same effect, _Capefigue's
Richelieu_, vol. i. p. 274; and the candid admissions of the
Protestant Le Vassor, in his _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. v.
p. 11.
If, at this juncture, the Protestants had carried the day, the loss to
France would have been immense, perhaps irreparable. For no one, who is
acquainted with the temper and character of the French Calvinists, can
doubt, that if they had obtained possession of the government, they
would have revived those religious persecutions which, so far as their
power extended, they had already attempted to enforce. Not only in their
writings, but even in the edicts of their assemblies, we find ample
proof of that meddling and intolerant spirit which, in every age, has
characterized ecclesiastical legislation. Indeed, such a spirit is the
legitimate consequence of the fundamental assumption from which
theological lawgivers usually start. The clergy are taught to consider
that their paramount duty is to preserve the purity of the faith, and
guard it against the invasions of heresy. Whenever, therefore, they rise
to power, it almost invariably happens, that they carry into politics
the habits they have contracted in their profession; and having long
been accustomed to consider religious error as criminal, they now
naturally attempt to make it penal. And as all the European countries
have, in the period of their ignorance, been once ruled by the clergy,
just so do we find in the law-books of every land those traces of their
power which the progress of knowledge is gradually effacing. We find the
professors of the dominant creed enacting laws against the professors of
other creeds: laws sometimes to burn them, sometimes to exile them,
sometimes to take away their civil rights, sometimes only to take away
their political rights. These are the different gradations through which
persecution passes; and by observing which, we may measure, in any
country, the energy of the ecclesiastical spirit. At the same time, the
theory by which such measures are supported generally gives rise to
other measures of a somewhat different, though of an analogous
character. For, by extending the authority of law to opinions as well as
to acts, the basis of legislation becomes dangerously enlarged; the
individuality and independence of each man are invaded; and
encouragement is given to the enactment of intrusive and vexatious
regulations, which are supposed to perform for morals the service that
the other class of laws performs for religion. Under pretence of
favouring the practice of virtue, and maintaining the purity of society,
men are troubled in their most ordinary pursuits, in the commonest
occurrences of life, in their amusements, nay, even in the very dress
they may be inclined to wear. That this is what has actually been done,
must be known to whoever has looked into the writings of the fathers,
into the canons of Christian councils, into the different systems of
ecclesiastical law, or into the sermons of the earlier clergy. Indeed,
all this is so natural, that regulations, conceived in the same spirit,
were drawn up for the government of Geneva by the Calvinist clergy, and
for the government of England by Archbishop Cranmer and his coadjutors;
while a tendency, precisely identical, may be observed in the
legislation of the Puritans, and to give a still later instance, in that
of the Methodists. It is, therefore, not surprising that, in France, the
Protestant clergy, having great power among their own party, should
enforce a similar discipline. Thus, to mention only a few examples,
they forbade any one to go to a theatre, or even to witness the
performance of private theatricals.[174] They looked upon dancing as an
ungodly amusement, and, therefore, they not only strictly prohibited it,
but they ordered that all dancing-masters should be admonished
by the spiritual power, and desired to abandon so unchristian a
profession. If, however, the admonition failed in effecting its
purpose, the dancing-masters, thus remaining obdurate, were to be
excommunicated.[175] With the same pious care did the clergy superintend
other matters equally important. In one of their synods, they ordered
that all persons should abstain from wearing gay apparel, and should
arrange their hair with becoming modesty.[176] In another synod, they
forbade women to paint; and they declared that if, after this
injunction, any woman persisted in painting, she should not be allowed
to receive the sacrament.[177] To their own clergy, as the instructors
and shepherds of the flock, there was paid an attention still more
scrupulous. The ministers of the Word were permitted to teach Hebrew,
because Hebrew is a sacred dialect, uncontaminated by profane writers.
But the Greek language, which contains all the philosophy and nearly all
the wisdom of antiquity, was to be discouraged, its study laid aside,
its professorship suppressed.[178] And, in order that the mind might not
be distracted from spiritual things, the study of chemistry was likewise
forbidden; such a mere earthly pursuit being incompatible with the
habits of the sacred profession.[179] Lest, however, in spite of these
precautions, knowledge should still creep in among the Protestants,
other measures were taken to prevent even its earliest approach. The
clergy, entirely forgetting that right of private judgment upon which
their sect was founded, became so anxious to protect the unwary from
error, that they forbade any person to print or publish a work without
the sanction of the church; in other words, without the sanction of the
clergy themselves.[180] When, by these means, they had destroyed the
possibility of free inquiry, and, so far as they were able, had put a
stop to the acquisition of all real knowledge, they proceeded to guard
against another circumstance to which their measures had given rise.
For, several of the Protestants, seeing that under such a system, it was
impossible to educate their families with advantage, sent their children
to some of those celebrated Catholic colleges, where alone a sound
education could then be obtained. But the clergy, so soon as they heard
of this practice, put an end to it, by excommunicating the offending
parents;[181] and to this there was added an order forbidding them to
admit into their own private houses any tutor who professed the Catholic
religion.[182] Such was the way in which the French Protestants were
watched over and protected by their spiritual masters. Even the minutest
matters were not beneath the notice of these great legislators. They
ordered that no person should go to a ball or masq
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/44494