History of Civilization in England, Vol. 2 of 3

History of Civilization in England, Vol. 2 of 3
Henry Buckley

Henry Thomas Buckle

History of Civilization in England, Vol. 2 of 3

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 - 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.] 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.

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 - 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.] 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.

This was the beginning of that second marked divergence between French and English civilization,[3 - The first divergence arose from the influence of the protective spirit, as I shall endeavour to explain in the next chapter.] 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 - 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.] 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 - 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.] 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 - 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 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.] 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 - 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 cœlestis 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.’] 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 - 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.] 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 - 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.] Such was the indifference of the people, that these vast changes were accompanied without any serious risk.[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.] 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 - ‘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 - 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).] and it had possessed a literature at a time when our ancestors were a mere tribe of wild and ignorant barbarians.

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 - 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).] 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 - 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.] 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.

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 - 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.] and the Catholics murdering the Protestants, it was hardly likely that either sect should feel tolerance for the opinions of its enemy.[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.] During the sixteenth century, treaties were occasionally made between the two parties; but they were only made to be immediately broken;[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.] 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 - For which l'Hôpital was accused of atheism: ‘Homo doctus, sed verus atheus.’ Dict. Philos. article Athéisme, in Œuvres de Voltaire, vol. xxxvii. pp. 181, 182.] 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 - 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, Œconomies 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 - ‘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.] 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.

How long these sad days[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.] 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 - 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, Œconomies 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.] 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 - 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.] Henry II., whose zeal was still greater,[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.] ordered the judges to proceed against the Protestants, and publicly declared that he would ‘make the extirpation of the heretics his principal business.’[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.] 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 - 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 - 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.] 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 - 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.] 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 - 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, Œconomies 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.] 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 - 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.] 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 - 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.] 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.

The writings of Rabelais are often considered to afford the first instance of religious scepticism in the French language.[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.] 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 - Particularly the monks. See, among numerous other instances, vol. i. pp. 278, 282, vol. ii. pp. 284, 285, of Œuvres 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.’] 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 - His joke on the strength of Samson (Œuvres 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.] 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 - 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.] 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 - 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.] 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 - 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.] 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 - 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.] 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 - 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.] 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 - 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.] increased the circulation of his works, and thus contributed to popularize those opinions which he ventured to recommend for general adoption.

This, then, is the first open declaration of that scepticism, which, towards the end of the sixteenth century, publicly appeared in France.[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.] 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.

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 - 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.] 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 - 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.] 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 - See his definition, or rather description, of wisdom, in Charron, De la Sagesse, vol. i. p. 295, vol. ii. pp. 113, 115.] 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 - De la Sagesse, vol. i. pp. 63, 351.] 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 - ‘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.] and all of them are equally based upon supernatural pretensions, such as mysteries, miracles, prophets, and the like.[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.] 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 - 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.] 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 - ‘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.] 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 - 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 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.] 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 - 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.] The clergy, sensible of the danger, wished the government to check the progress of inquiry;[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.] 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 - 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, Œconomies Royales, vol. v. p. 122, edit. 1820.] 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 - ‘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.] and therefore, though he was a Catholic, his policy rather leaned in favour of the Protestants, as being the weaker party.[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.’] He granted sums of money towards the support of their ministers and the repair of their churches;[58 - Sully, Œconomies 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.] he banished the Jesuits, who were their most dangerous enemies;[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, Œconomies, 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.] 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 - 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, Œconomies, 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 - 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.] but the circumstances which occurred after his death, showed how great an impetus had been given to the age.

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 - 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.] 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.

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 - ‘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.’ Œconomies Royales, vol. viii. p. 401.] 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 - 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.] 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 - 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.] And, in 1615, she caused the king, who still remained under her tutelage,[66 - ‘Laissant néanmoins l'administration du royaume à la reine sa mère.’ Mém. de Bassompierre, vol. ii. p. 52. Compare Sully, Œconomies, 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.] to issue a declaration, by which all preceding measures in favour of the Protestants were publicly confirmed.[67 - Bazin, Hist. de Louis XIII, vol. i. pp. 381, 382.] 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 - 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 - ‘Der erste Einhalt den die kirchliche Restauration erfuhr, geschah in Frankreich,’ Ranke, die Römischen Päpste, vol. iii. p. 160.] 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 - 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.] 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 - 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 - 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.] 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 - 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.] 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 - 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.] 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.

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 - 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.’] 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 - 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.] 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 - ‘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.] 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 - 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 - 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.’] 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 - 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.] 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 - ‘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.] 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 - 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 - ‘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.] 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 - 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.] 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 - 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.’] 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 - ‘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 - 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.] 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 - 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.] 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 - ‘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.] and what was worse than all, they even accused him of wishing to establish a schism in the French church.[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.] 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 - 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 - 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.] 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 - 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.] 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 - On the policy, and still more on the feelings, of Henry IV. towards the House of Austria, see Sully, Œconomies 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.] 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 - 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.] 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 - 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 - 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, Œcon. Royales, vol. ix. p. 181: compare vol. vii. p. 248, on ‘les zéléz catholiques espagnolisez de France.’] 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 - 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.’] 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 - 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.] 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 - 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.] but Richelieu, directly he was called to the council, determined to humble that house in both its branches.[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.] 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 - ‘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.] 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 - 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.] 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 - 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.] and, failing in that, he concluded in their favour an alliance with Gustavus Adolphus,[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.’] 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 - 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.] 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 - 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 - 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.] 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 - ‘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.] 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 - ‘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.’] In this important treaty, ecclesiastical interests were altogether disregarded;[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.] 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 - ‘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.] 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 - 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.] 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 - 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.] 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.

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 - 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.] 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 - ‘Il n'y avoit personne dans le parti huguenot si considérable que lui.’ Tallemant des Réaux, Historiettes, vol. v. p. 204.] Both these appointments were in 1622;[117 - Biog. Univ. vol. xv. p. 247; Benoist, Hist. de l'Edit de Nantes, vol. ii. p. 400.] 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 - Additions to Sully, Œconomies Royales, vol. viii. p. 496; Smedley's Hist. of the Reformed Religion in France, vol. iii. p. 204.] 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 - 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 - 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 - 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.] But, under the tolerant policy of Henry IV. and Louis XIII., they continued to diminish.[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.’] 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.

It is, of course, impossible to fix the exact period at which this important change took place.[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.’] 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 - ‘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.] became a Catholic, and, as a reward for his conversion, was made constable of France.[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 Œuvres 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.] The Duke de la Tremouille adopted the same course;[126 - Sismondi, Hist. des Français, vol. xxiii. p. 67; Le Vassor, Hist. de Louis XIII, vol. v. pp. 809, 810, 865.] as also did the Duke de la Meilleraye,[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.] the Duke de Bouillon,[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.] and a few years later the Marquis de Montausier.[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.’] 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 - ‘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.] 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 - 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, Œconomies Royales, vol. ii. p. 81, vol. vii. pp. 362, 363.] 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 - ‘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 - 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.’] 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.

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 - 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.] 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.

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 - 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.] 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 - 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.] 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 - 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.] and, according to the process I have already traced, will thus hasten the march of toleration.

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 - ‘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.] 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 - 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.] 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 - ‘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.] 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 - Mém. de Richelieu, vol. ii. p. 100. For other and similar evidence, see Duplessis Mornay, Mémoires, vol. xi. p. 244; Sully, Œconomies Royales, vol. vii. p. 164; Benoist, Hist. de l'Edit de Nantes, vol. ii. pp. 70, 233, 279.] 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 - Quick's Synodicon in Gallia, vol. ii. p. 196.] 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 - For a striking instance of the actual enforcement of this intolerant regulation, see Quick's Synodicon in Gallia, vol. ii. p. 344.] 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 - 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 - 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.] 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 - 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.] 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 - 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.’] 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 - 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 - 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.] 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 - 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 - Capefigue's Richelieu, vol. i. p. 123.] The deputies of Grenoble insisted that government should refuse to acknowledge the Council of Trent;[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.] and both assemblies ordered that the Protestants should prevent the marriage of Louis XIII. with a Spanish princess.[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.] 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 - Capefigue's Richelieu, vol. i. p. 38; Benoist, Hist. de l'Edit de Nantes, vol. ii. pp. 28, 29, 63.] 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 - 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 - 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.] 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 - 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.] 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 - ‘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.] 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 - 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.] 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 - 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 - ‘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.’] 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.