CHAPTER LXXIII.

SUMMARY.--DECLARATION OF THE AUTHOR.

Having reached the end of my difficult enterprise, let me be allowed

to take a retrospective view of the vast space over which I have but

just passed, like the traveller who rests after his labor. The fear of

seeing religious schism introduced into my country; the sight of the

efforts which were made to inculcate Protestant errors amongst us; the

perusal of certain writings, wherein it was stated that the pretended

Reformation had been favorable to the progress of nations,--such were

the motives which inspired me with the idea of undertaking this work.

My object was, to show that neither individuals nor society owe any

thing to Protestantism, either in a religious, social, political, or

literary point of view. I undertook to examine what history tells us,

and what philosophy teaches us, on this point. I was not ignorant

of the immense extent of the questions which I had to enter upon; I

was far from flattering myself that I was able to clear them up in a

becoming manner; nevertheless I set forth upon my journey, with that

courage which is inspired by the love of truth, and the confidence that

one is defending its cause.

When considering the birth of Protestantism, I have endeavored to

take as lofty a view as possible. I have rendered to men that justice

which is due to them; I have attributed a large portion of the evil

to the wretched condition of mankind, to the weakness of our minds,

and to that inheritance of perverseness and ignorance which has been

transmitted to us by the fall of our first parent. Luther, Calvin,

and Zuinglius have disappeared from my eyes; placed in the immense

picture of events, they have been viewed by me as small imperceptible

figures, whose individuality was far from deserving the importance

which was given to them at other periods. Honest in my convictions,

and unreserved in my words, I have acknowledged with candor, but with

sorrow, that there existed certain abuses, and that these abuses were

taken as pretexts when it was wished to break the unity of the faith.

I have allowed that a portion of the blame shall also fall upon men;

but I have also pointed out, that the more you here lay stress upon

the weakness and wickedness of man, the more do you illustrate the

providence of Him who has promised to be with His Church till the

consummation of ages.

By the aid of reasoning and irrefragable experience, I have proved

that the fundamental dogmas of Protestantism show little knowledge of

the human mind, and were a fruitful source of errors and catastrophes.

Then, turning my attention to the development of European civilization,

I have made a continued comparison between Protestantism and

Catholicity; and I believe that I may assert, that I have not hazarded

any proposition of importance without having supported it by the

evidence of historical facts. I have found it necessary to take a

survey of all ages, dating from the commencement of Christianity, and

to observe the different phases under which civilization has appeared;

without this, it would have been impossible to give a complete

vindication of the Catholic religion.

The reader may have observed that the prevailing idea of the work is

this: "Before Protestantism European civilization had reached all the

development which was possible for it; Protestantism perverted the

course of civilization, and produced immense evils in modern society;

the progress which has been made since Protestantism, has been made not

by it, but in spite of it." I have only consulted history, and I have

taken extreme care not to pervert it; I have borne in mind this passage

of holy writ: "Has God, then, need of thy falsehood?" The documents to

which I refer are there; they are to be found in all libraries, ready

to answer; read them, and judge for yourselves.

I am not aware, in the multitude of questions which have presented

themselves to me, and which it has been indispensable for me to

examine, that I have resolved any in a manner not in conformity with

the dogmas of the religion which I was desirous of defending. I am

not aware that, in any passage of my book, I have laid down erroneous

propositions, or expressed myself in ill-sounding terms. Before

publishing my work, I submitted it to the examination of ecclesiastical

authority; and without hesitation, I complied with the slightest

hint on its part, purifying, correcting, and modifying what had been

pointed out as worthy of purification, correction, or modification.

Notwithstanding that, I submit my whole work to the judgment of the

Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman Church; as soon as the Sovereign

Pontiff, the Vicar of Jesus Christ upon earth, shall pronounce sentence

against any one of my opinions, I will hasten to declare that I

consider that opinion erroneous, and cease to profess it.

NOTES.

NOTE 1, p. 26.

The _History of the Variations_ is one of those works which exhaust

their subject, and which do not admit of reply or addition. If

this immortal _chef-d'œuvre_ be read with attention, the cause of

Protestantism, with respect to faith, is forever decided: there is no

middle way left between Catholicity and infidelity. Gibbon read it in

his youth, and he became a Catholic, abandoning the Protestant religion

in which he had been brought up. When, at a later period, he left the

Catholic Church, he did not become a Protestant, but an unbeliever.

My readers will perhaps like to learn from the mouth of this famous

writer what he thought of the work of Bossuet, and the effect which was

produced on him by its perusal. These are his words: "In the _History

of the Variations_, an attack equally vigorous and well-directed," says

he, "Bossuet shows, by a happy mixture of reasoning and narration,

the errors, mistakes, uncertainties, and contradictions of our first

reformers, whose variations, as he learnedly maintains, bear the

marks of error; _while the uninterrupted unity of the Catholic Church

is a sign and testimony of infallible truth_. I read, approved, and

believed." (Gibbon's _Memoirs_.)

NOTE 2, p. 27.

It has been wished to represent Luther to us as a man of lofty ideas,

of noble and generous feelings, and as a defender of the rights

of the human race. Yet he himself has left us in his writings the

most striking testimony of the violence of his character, of his

disgusting rudeness, and his savage intolerance. Henry VIII., king of

England, undertook to refute the book of Luther called _De Captivitate

Babylonica_; and behold the latter, irritated by such boldness, writes

to the king, and calls him _sacrilegious, mad, senseless, the grossest

of all pigs and of all asses_. It is evident that Luther paid but

little regard to royalty; he did the same with respect to literary

merit. Erasmus, who was perhaps the most learned man of his age, or

who at least surpassed all others in the variety of his knowledge, in

the refinement and _éclat_ of his mind, was not better treated by the

furious innovator, in spite of all the indulgence for which the latter

was indebted to him. As soon as Luther saw that Erasmus did not think

proper to be enrolled in the new sect, he attacked him with so much

violence, that the latter complained of it, saying, "_that in his old

age he was compelled to contend against a savage beast, a furious wild

boar_." Luther did not confine himself to mere words; he proceeded to

acts. It was at his instigation that Carlostad was exiled from the

states of the Duke of Saxony, and was reduced to such misery, that he

was compelled to carry wood, and do other similar things, to gain his

livelihood. In his many disputes with the Zwinglians, Luther did not

belie his character; he called them _damned_, _fools_, _blasphemers_.

As he lavished such epithets on his dissenting companions, we cannot

be astonished that he called the doctors of Louvain _beasts_,

_pigs_, _Pagans_, _Epicureans_, _Atheists_; and that he makes use

of other expressions which decency will not allow us to cite; and

that, launching forth against the Pope, he says, "_He is a mad wolf,

against whom every one ought to take arms, without waiting even for

the order of the magistrates; in this matter there can be no room left

for repentance, except for not having been able to bury the sword in

his breast_;" adding, "that all those who followed the Pope ought to

be pursued like bandit-chiefs, were they kings or emperors." Such

was the spirit of tolerance which animated Luther. And let it not be

imagined that this intolerance was confined to him; it extended to

all the party of the innovators, and its effects were cruelly felt.

We have an unexceptionable witness of this truth in Melancthon, the

beloved disciple of Luther, and one of the most distinguished men

that Protestantism has had. "I find myself under such oppression,"

wrote Melancthon to his friend Camerarius, "that I seem to be in the

cave of the Cyclops; it is almost impossible for me to explain to you

my troubles; and every moment I feel myself tempted to take flight."

"These are," he says, in another letter, "ignorant men, who know

neither piety nor discipline; behold what they are who command, and you

will understand that I am like Daniel in the lions' den." How, then,

can it be maintained that such an enterprise was guided by a generous

idea, and that it was really attempted to free the human mind? The

intolerance of Calvin, sufficiently shown by the single fact mentioned

in the text, is manifested in his works at every page, by the manner in

which he treats his adversaries. _Wicked men_, _rogues_, _drunkards_,

_fools_, _madmen_, _furies_, _beasts_, _bulls_, _pigs_, _asses_,

_dogs_, and _vile slaves of Satan_. Such are the polite terms which

abound in the writings of the famous reformer. And how many wretched

things of the same kind could I not relate, if I did not fear to

disgust my readers!

NOTE 3, p. 27.

The Diet of Spires had made a decree concerning the change of religion

and worship; fourteen towns of the empire refused to submit to it,

and presented a Protest; hence men began to call the dissenters

_Protestants_. As this name is a condemnation of the separated

churches, they have several times attempted to assume others, but

always in vain; the names which they took were false, and false names

do not last. What was their meaning when they called themselves

_Evangelicals_? That they adhered to the Gospel alone? In that case

they ought rather to call themselves _Biblicals_; for it was not to the

Gospel that they professed to adhere, but to the Bible. They are also

sometimes called _Reformers_; and many people have been accustomed to

call _Protestantism, reformation_; but it is enough to pronounce this

word, to feel how inappropriate it is; _religious revolution_ would be

much more proper.

NOTE 4, p. 27.

Count de Maistre, in his work _Du Pape_, has developed this question

of names in an inimitable manner. Among his numerous observations,

there is one very just one: it is, that the Catholic Church alone has

a positive and proper name, which she gives to herself, and which is

given to her by the whole world. The separated Churches have invented

many, but without the power of appropriating them.--"Each one was free

to take what name he pleased," says M. de Maistre; "_Lais_, in person,

might be able to write upon her door, _Hôtel d'Artémise_. The great

point is, to compel others to give us a particular name, which is not

so easy as to take it of our own authority."

Moreover, it must not be imagined that Count de Maistre was the

inventor of this argument; a long time before him St. Jerome and St.

Augustin had used it. "If you," says St. Jerome, "hear them called

Marcionites, Valentinians, Montanists, know that they are not the

Church of Christ, but the synagogue of Antichrist.--Si audieris

nuncupari Marcionitas, Valentinianos, Montanenses, scito, non Ecclesiam

Christi, sed Antichristi esse synagogam." (Hieron. lib. _Adversus

Luciferianos_.) "I am retained in the Church," says St. Augustin, "by

her very name of Catholic; for it was not without a cause that she

alone, amid so many heresies, obtained that name. All the heretics

desire to be called Catholics; yet if a stranger asks them which is the

church of the Catholics, none of them venture to point out their church

or house.--Tenet me in Ecclesia ipsum Catholicæ nomen, quod non sine

causa inter tam multas hæreses, sic ipsa sola obtinuit, ut cum omnes

hæretici se Catholicos dici velint, quærenti tamen peregrino alicui,

ubi ad Catholicam conveniatur, nullus hæreticorum, vel basilicam suam

vel domum audeat ostendere." (St. Augustin.) What St. Augustin observed

of his time is again realized with respect to the Protestants. I

appeal to the testimony of those who have visited the countries where

different communions exist. An illustrious Spaniard of the seventeenth

century, who had lived a long time in Germany, tells us, "They all

wish to be called Catholic and Apostolical; but notwithstanding this

pretension, they are called Lutherans, or Calvinists.--Singuli volunt

Catholici et Apostolici, sed volunt, et ab aliis non hoc prætenso illis

nomine, sed Luterani potius aut Calviniani nominantur." (Caramuel.)

"I have dwelt in the towns of heretics," continues the same writer,

"and I have seen with my eyes and heard with my ears a thing on which

the heterodox should reflect: _it is, that with the exception of the

Protestant preacher, and a few others, who desire to know more of

the thing than is necessary, all the crowd of heretics gave the name

of Catholics to the Romans_.--Habitavi in hæreticorum civitatibus;

et hoc propriis oculis vidi, propriis audivi auribus, quod deberet

ab hæterodoxis ponderari, _præter prædicantem, et pauculos qui plus

sapiunt quam oportet sapere, totum hæreticorum vulgus Catholicos vocat

Romanos_." Such is the force of truth. The ideologists know well

that these phenomena have deep causes, and that these arguments are

something more than subtilties.

NOTE 5, p. 38.

So much has been said of abuses, the influence which they may have had

on the disasters which the Church suffered during the last centuries

has been so much exaggerated, and at the same time so much care has

been taken, by hypocritical praise, to exalt the purity of manners and

strictness of discipline in the primitive Church, that some people

have at last imagined a line of division between ancient and modern

times. These persons see in the early times only truth and sanctity;

they attribute to the others only corruption and falsehood; as if,

in the early ages of the Church, all the faithful were angels--as if

the Church, at all times, had not errors to correct and passions to

control. With history in our hands, it would be easy to reduce these

exaggerated ideas to their just value, to which Erasmus himself,

certainly little disposed to exculpate his contemporaries, does

justice. He clearly shows us, in a parallel between his own times and

those of the early ages of the Church, how puerile and ill-founded

was the desire, then so widely diffused, of exalting antiquity at the

expense of the present time. We find a fragment of this parallel in the

works of Marchetti, among his observations on Fleury's history.

It would not be less curious to pass in review the regulations made by

the Church to check all kinds of abuses. The collections of councils

would furnish us with so many materials thereupon, that many volumes

would not suffice to make them known; or rather, these collections

themselves, with alarming bulk, from one end to the other, are nothing

but an evident proof of these two truths: 1st, that there have been

at all times many abuses to be corrected, an effect, in some measure

necessary, of the weakness and corruption of human nature; 2dly, that

at all periods the Church has labored to correct these abuses, so that

it may be affirmed without hesitation, that you cannot point out one

without immediately finding a canonical regulation by its side to check

or punish it. These observations clearly show that Protestantism was

not caused by abuses, but that it was a great calamity, as it were,

rendered unavoidable by the fickleness of the human mind, and the

condition in which society was placed. In the same sense Jesus Christ

has said, _that it was necessary that there should be scandal_; not

that any one in particular is forced to give it, but because such is

the corruption of the human heart, that the natural course of things

must necessarily bring it.

NOTE 6, p. 42.

This concert and unity, which are found in Catholicity, are

things which ought to fill every sensible man with admiration and

astonishment, whatever his religious ideas may be. If we do not suppose

that _the finger of God is here_, how can we explain or understand the

continuance of the centre of unity in the see of Rome? So much has

been said of the supremacy of the Pope, that it is very difficult to

add any thing new; but perhaps our readers will not be displeased to

see a passage of St. Francis de Sales, where the various remarkable

titles given to the Sovereign Pontiff and to his see, by the Church in

ancient times, are collected. This work of the holy Bishop is worthy of

being introduced, not only because it interests the curiosity, but also

because it furnishes matter for grave reflection, which we leave to the

reader.

TITLES OF THE POPE.

Most Holy Bishop of the Catholic Church--Council of Soissons, of 300

Bishops.

Most Holy and Blessed Patriarch--Ibid., t. vii., Council.

Most Blessed Lord--St. Augustine, Ep. 95.

Universal Patriarch--St. Leo, P., Ep. 62.

Chief of the Church in the World--Innoc. ad P. P. Concil. Milevit.

The Bishop elevated to the Apostolic eminence--St. Cyprian, Ep. 3, 12.

Father of Fathers--Council of Chalcedon, Sess. iii.

Sovereign Pontiff of Bishops--Id., in præf.

Sovereign Priest--Council of Chalcedon, Sess. xvi.

Prince of Priests--Stephen, Bishop of Carthage.

Prefect of the House of God and Guardian of the Lord's

Vineyard--Council of Carthage, Ep. to Damasus.

Vicar of Jesus Christ, Confirmer of the Faith of Christians--St.

Jerome, præf. in Evang. ad Damasum.

High-Priest--Valentinian, and all antiquity with him.

The Sovereign Pontiff--Council of Chalcedon, in Epist. ad Theodos.

Imper.

The Prince of Bishops--Ibid.

The Heir of the Apostles--St. Bern., lib. de Consid.

Abraham by the Patriarchate--St. Ambrose, in 1 Tim. iii.

Melchisedech by ordination--Council of Chalcedon, Epist. ad Leonem.

Moses by authority--St. Bernard, Epist. 190.

Samuel by jurisdiction--Id. ib., et in lib. de Consider.

Peter by power--Ibid.

Christ by unction--Ibid.

The Shepherd of the Fold of Jesus Christ--Id. lib ii. de Consider.

Key-Bearer of the House of God--Id. ibid. c. viii.

The Shepherd of all Shepherds--Ibid.

The Pontiff called to the plentitude of power--Ibid.

St. Peter was the Mouth of Jesus Christ--St. Chrysost., Hom. ii., in

Div. Serm.

The Mouth and Head of the Apostleship--Orig., Hom. lv. in Matth.

The Cathedra and Principal Church--St. Cypr., Ep. lv. ad Cornel.

The Source of Sacerdotal Unity--Id., Epist. iii. 2.

The Bond of Unity--Id. ibid. iv. 2.

The Church where resides the chief power (_potentior

principalitas_)--Id. ibid. iii. 8.

The Church the Root and Mother of all the others--St. Anaclet. Papa,

Epist. ad omnes Episc. et Fideles.

The See on which our Lord has built the Universal Church--St. Damasus,

Epist. ad Univ. Episcop.

The Cardinal Point and Head of all the Churches--St. Marcellinus, R.

Epist. ad Episc. Antioch.

The Refuge of Bishops--Conc. Alex., Epist. ad Felic. P.

The Supreme Apostolic See--St. Athanasius.

The Presiding Church--Emperor Justin., in lib. viii., Cod. de Sum.

Trinit.

The Supreme See which cannot be judged by any other--St. Leo, in Nat.

SS. Apost.

The Church set over and preferred to all the others--Victor d'Utiq.,

in lib. de Perfect.

The first of all the Sees--St. Prosper, in lib. de Ingrat.

The Apostolic Fountain--St. Ignatius, Epist. ad Rom. in Subscript.

The most secure Citadel of all Catholic Communion--Council of Rome

under St. Gelasius.

NOTE 7, p. 45.

I have said that the most distinguished Protestants have felt the void

which is found in all sects separated from the Catholic Church. I am

about to give proofs of this assertion, which perhaps some persons may

consider hazardous. Luther, writing to Zwinglius, said, "If the world

lasts for a long time, it will be again necessary, on account of the

different interpretations which are now given to the Scriptures, to

receive the decrees of Councils, and take refuge in them, in order to

preserve the unity of the faith.--Si diutius steterit mundus, iterum

erit necessarium, propter diversas Scripturæ interpretationes quæ

nunc sunt, ad conservandam fidei unitatem, ut conciliorum decreta

recipiamus, atque ad ea confugiamus."

Melancthon, deploring the fatal results of the want of spiritual

jurisdiction, said, "There will result from it a liberty useless to the

world;" and in another place he utters these remarkable words: "There

are required in the Church inspectors, to maintain order, to observe

attentively those who are called to the ecclesiastical ministry, to

watch over the doctrine of priests, and pronounce ecclesiastical

judgments; so that if bishops did not exist, it would be necessary to

create them. The _monarchy of the Pope would be of great utility to

preserve among such various nations uniformity of doctrine_."

Let us hear Calvin: "God has placed the seat of his worship in the

centre of the earth, and has placed there only one Pontiff, whom

all may regard, the better to preserve unity.--Cultus sui sedem in

medio terræ collocavit, illi _unum_ Antisticem præfecit, quem omnes

respicerent, quo melius in unitate continerentur."--(Calvin, _Inst._ 6,

§ 11.)

"I have also," says Beza, "been long and greatly tormented by the same

thoughts which you describe to me. I see our people wander at the

mercy of every wind of doctrine, and after having been raised up, fall

sometimes on one side, and sometimes on the other. What they think of

religion to-day you may know; what they will think of it to-morrow you

cannot affirm. _On what point of religion are the Churches which have

declared war against the Pope agreed? Examine all, from beginning to

end, you will hardly find one thing affirmed by the one which the other

does not directly cry out against as impiety._--Exercuerunt me diu et

multum illæ ipsæ quas describis cogitationes. Video nostros palantes

omni doctrinæ vento, et in altum sublatos, modo ad hanc, modo ad illam

partem deferri. Horum, quæ sit hodie de religione sententia scire

fortasse possis; sed quæ cras de eadem futura sit opinio, neque tu

certo affirmare queas. In quo tandem religionis capite congruunt inter

se Ecclesiæ, quæ Romano Pontifici bellum indixerunt? A capite ad calcem

si percurras omnia, nihil propemodum reperias ab uno affirmari, quod

alter statim non impium esse clamitet." (Th. Bez. _Epist. ad Andream

Dudit_.)

Grotius, one of the most learned of Protestants, also felt the weakness

of the foundation on which the separated sects repose. Many people have

believed that he died a Catholic. The Protestants accused him of having

the intention of embracing the Roman faith; and the Catholics, who had

relations with him at Paris, thought the same thing. It is said that

the celebrated Petau, the friend of Grotius, at the news of his death,

said mass for him; an anecdote the truth of which I do not guarantee.

It is certain that Grotius, in his work entitled _De Antichristo_,

does not think, with other Protestants, that the Pope is Antichrist.

It is certain that, in his work entitled _Votum pro Pace Ecclesiæ_,

he says, without circumlocution, "that without the supremacy of the

Pope, it is impossible to put an end to disputes;" and he alleges

the example of the Protestants: "as it happens," says he, "among the

Protestants." It is certain that, in his posthumous work, _Rivetiani

Apologetici Discussio_, he openly lays down the fundamental principle

of Catholicity, namely, that "the dogmas of faith should be decided

by tradition and the authority of the Church, and not by the holy

Scriptures only."

The conversion of the celebrated Protestant Papin, which made so much

noise, is another proof of what we are endeavoring to show. Papin

reflected on the fundamental principle of Protestantism, and on the

contradiction which exists between this principle and the intolerance

of Protestants, who, relying only on private judgment, yet have

recourse to authority for self-preservation. He reasoned as follows:

"If the principle of authority, which they attempt to adopt, is

innocent and legitimate, it condemns their origin, wherein they refused

to submit to the authority of the Catholic Church; but if the principle

of private judgment, which they embraced in the beginning, was right

and just, this is enough to condemn the principle of authority invented

by them for the purpose of avoiding its excesses; for this principle

opens and smooths the way to the greatest disorders of impiety."

Puffendorf, who will certainly not be accused of coldness when

attacking Catholicity, could not help paying his tribute also to the

truth, when, in a confession for which all Catholics ought to thank

him, he says, "The suppression of the authority of the Pope has sowed

endless germs of discord in the world: as there is no longer any

sovereign authority to terminate the disputes which arise on all sides,

we have seen the Protestants split among themselves, and tear their

bowels with their own hands." (Puffendorf, _de Monarch. Pont. Roman_.)

Leibnitz, that great man, who, according to the expression of

Fontenelle, advanced all sciences, also acknowledged the weakness

of Protestantism, and the organizing power which belongs to the

Catholic Church. We know that, far from participating in the anger of

Protestants against the Pope, he regarded the religious supremacy of

Rome with the most lively sympathy. He openly avows the superiority of

the Catholic over the Protestant missions; the religious communities

themselves, the objects of so much aversion to so many people, were

to him highly respectable. These anticipations with respect to the

religious ideas of this great man have been more and more confirmed

by one of his posthumous works, published for the first time at Paris

in 1819. _The Exposition of the Doctrine of Leibnitz on Religion,

followed by Thoughts extracted from the writings of the same Author,

by M. Emery, formerly General Superior of St. Sulpice_, contains

the posthumous work of Leibnitz, whereof the title, in the original

manuscript, is, _Theological System_. The commencement of this work,

remarkable for its seriousness and simplicity, is certainly worthy

of the great soul of this distinguished thinker. It is this: "After

having long and profoundly studied religious controversies, after

having implored the divine assistance, and laid aside, as far as it is

possible for man, all spirit of party, I have considered myself as a

neophyte come from the new world, and one who had not yet embraced an

opinion; behold, therefore, the conclusions at which I have arrived,

and what appeared to me, out of all that I have examined, worthy to be

received by all unprejudiced men, as what is most conformable to the

holy Scriptures and respectable antiquity; I will even say, to right

reason and the most certain historical facts."

Leibnitz afterwards lays down the existence of God, the Incarnation,

the Trinity, and the other dogmas of Christianity; he adopts with

candor, and defends with much learning, the doctrine of the Catholic

Church on tradition, the sacraments, the sacrifice of the Mass, the

respect paid to relics and holy images, the Church hierarchy, and the

supremacy of the Pope. He adds, "In all cases which do not admit the

delay of the convocation of a general Council, or which do not deserve

to be considered therein, it must be admitted that the first of the

Bishops, or the Sovereign Pontiff, has the same power as the whole

Church."

NOTE 8, p. 49.

Some persons may suppose that what we have said with respect to the

emptiness of human knowledge and the weakness of our intellect, has

been said only for the purpose of making the necessity of a rule in

matters of faith more sensibly felt. It is not so. It would be easy for

me to insert here a long list of texts, drawn from the writings of the

most illustrious men of ancient and modern times, who have insisted

upon this very point. I will only quote here an excellent passage from

an illustrious Spaniard, one of the greatest men of the sixteenth

century, Louis Vives. "_Jam mens ipsa, suprema animi et celsissima

pars, videbit quantopere sit tum natura sua tarda ac præpedita, tum

tenebris peccati cæca, et a doctrina, usu, ac solertia imperita et

rudis, ut ne ea quidem quæ videt, quæque manibus contrectat, cujusmodi

sint, aut quid fiant assequatur, nedum ut in abdito illa naturæ,

arcana possit penetrare; sapienterque ab Aristotele illa est posita

sententia: Mentem nostram ad manifestissima naturæ non aliter habere

se, quam noctuæ oculum ad lumen solis._ Ea omnia, quæ universum

hominum genus novit, quota sunt pars eorum quæ ignoramus? Nec solum

id in universitate artium est verum, sed in singulis earum, in quarum

nulla tantum est humanum ingenium progressum, ut ad medium pervenerit,

etiam in infimis illis ac villissimis; ut nihil existimetur verius

esse dictum ab Academicis quam Scire nihil." (Ludovic. Vives, _de

Concordia et Discordia_, lib. iv. c. iii.) So thought this great man,

who, to vast erudition in sacred and profane things, added profound

meditation on the human intellect itself; who followed the progress of

the sciences with an observant eye, and undertook to regenerate them,

as his writings prove. I regret that I cannot copy his words at length,

as well those in the passage which I have just cited, as those of his

immortal work on the causes of the decline of the arts and sciences,

and on the manner of teaching them. If any one complain that I have

told some truths as to the weakness of our minds, and fear lest this

should impede the progress of knowledge by checking its flights, I will

remind him that the best way of promoting the progress of our minds is,

to give them a knowledge of themselves. On this point, the profound

sentence of Seneca may be quoted: "I know that many persons would

have attained to wisdom, if they had not presumed that they already

possessed it." "Puto multos ad sapientiam protuisse pervenire, nisi se

jam crederent pervenisse."

NOTE 9, p. 53.

Dense clouds surround the intellect as soon as it approaches the first

principles of the sciences. I have said that even the mathematics,

the clearness and certainty of which have become proverbial, are not

exempted from this universal rule. The infinitesimal calculation,

which, in the present state of science, may be said to play the

leading part, nevertheless depends on a few ideas which, up to this

time, have not been well explained by any one--ideas with respect to

_limits_. I do not wish to throw any doubt on the certainty of this

calculation: I only wish to show, that, if it were attempted to examine

the ideas which are as it were the elements of it, before the tribunal

of metaphysical philosophy, the consequence would be, that shades

would be cast upon their certainty. Without going further than the

elementary part of science, we might discover some points which would

not bear a continued metaphysical and ideological analysis without

injury: a thing which it would be very easy to prove by example, if

the nature of this work allowed it. We may recommend to the reader on

this subject, the valuable letter addressed by the Spanish Jesuit,

Eximeno, a distinguished philosopher and mathematician, to his friend,

Juan Andres; he will there find some appropriate observations made by a

man who certainly will not be rejected on the ground of incompetency.

It is in Latin, and is called _Epistola ad clarissimum virum Joannem

Andresium_.

As to the other sciences, it is not necessary to say much to prove that

their first principles are surrounded with darkness; and it may be

said that the brilliant reveries of the most illustrious men have had

no other source than this very obscurity. Led away by the feeling of

their own strength, these men pursued truth even to the abyss; there,

to use the expression of an illustrious contemporary poet, _the torch

was extinguished in their hands_; lost in an obscure labyrinth, they

were then abandoned to the mercy of their fancies and inspirations;

it was thus that reality gave place to the beautiful dreams of their

genius.

NOTE 10, p. 54.

Nothing is better for understanding and explaining the innate weakness

of the human mind, than to survey the history of heresies; a history

which we owe to the Church, to the extreme care which she has taken to

define and classify errors. From Simon Magus, who called himself the

legislator of the Jews, the renovator of the world, and the paraclete,

while paying a worship of latria to his mistress Helena, under the

name of Minerva, down to Hermann, preaching the massacre of all the

priests and all the magistrates of the world, and affirming that he

was the real son of God; a vast picture, very unpleasant to behold, I

acknowledge, if it were only on account of the extravagances with which

it abounds, presents itself to the observer, and suggests to him very

grave and profound reflections on the real character of the human mind;

there it is easy to see the wisdom of Catholicity, in attempting, in

certain cases, to subject this inconstant spirit to rule.

NOTE 11, p. 57.

If any persons find difficulty in persuading themselves that illusion

and fanaticism are, as it were, in their proper element among

Protestants, behold the irresistible testimony of facts in aid of

our assertion. This subject would furnish large volumes; but I must

be content with a rapid glance. I begin with Luther. Is it possible

to carry raving further than to pretend to have been taught by the

devil, to boast of it, and to found new doctrines on so powerful an

authority? Yet this was the raving of Luther himself, the founder

of Protestantism, who has left us in his works the evidence of his

interview with Satan.--Whether the apparition was real, or produced

by the dreams of a night agitated by fever, it is impossible to carry

fanaticism further than to boast of having had such a master. Luther

tells us himself that he had many colloquies with the devil; but

what is above all worthy of attention is, the vision in which, as he

relates in the most serious manner, Satan, by his arguments, compelled

him to proscribe private masses. He gives us a lively description of

this adventure. He wakes in the middle of the night; Satan appears to

him.--Luther is seized with horror; he sweats, he trembles; his heart

beats in a fearful manner. Nevertheless the discussion begins, and the

devil, like a good disputant, presses him so hard with his arguments,

that he leaves him without reply. Luther is conquered; which ought

not to astonish us, since he tells us that the logic of the devil was

accompanied by a voice so alarming, that the blood froze in his veins.

"I then understood," says this wretched being, "how it often happens

that people die _at the break of day_; it is because the devil is able

to kill or suffocate men; and without going so far as that, when he

disputes with them, he places them in such embarrassment, that he can

thus occasion their death. I have often experienced this myself." This

passage is certainly curious.

The phantom which appeared to Zwinglius, the founder of Protestantism

in Switzerland, affords us another example of extravagance no less

absurd. This heresiarch wished to deny the real presence of Jesus

Christ in the Eucharist; he pretended that what exists under the

consecrated species is only a sign. As the authority of the sacred

text, which clearly expresses the contrary, embarrassed him, behold,

suddenly, at the moment when he imagined that he was disputing with

the secretary of the town, a white or black phantom, so he tells

us himself, appeared to him, and showed him a means. This pleasant

anecdote we have from Zwinglius himself.

Who does not regret to see such a man as Melancthon also given up

to the prejudices and manias of the most ridiculous superstition,

stupidly credulous with respect to dreams, extraordinary phenomena,

and astrological prognostics? Read his letters, which are filled with

such pitiful things. At the time when the diet of Augsburg was held,

Melancthon regarded as favourable presages for the new gospel an

inundation of the Tiber, the birth at Rome of a monstrous mule with a

crane's foot, and that of a calf with two heads in the territory of

Augsburg,--events which to him were the undoubted announcements of a

change in the universe, and particularly of the approaching ruin of

Rome by the power of schism. He himself makes the horoscope of his

daughter, and he trembles for her because Mars presents an alarming

aspect; he is not the less alarmed at the tail of a comet appearing

within the limits of the north. The astrologers had predicted that in

autumn the stars would be more favorable to ecclesiastical disputes;

this prognostic sufficed to console him for the slowness of the

conferences of Augsburg on the subject of religion: we see, moreover,

that his friends--that is, the leaders of the party--allowed themselves

to be ruled by the same powerful reasons. As if he had not troubles

enough, it is predicted that Melancthon will be shipwrecked in the

Baltic; he avoids sailing on those fatal waters. Certain Franciscans

had prophesied that the power of the Pope was about to decline, and

then to fall for ever; also that, in the year 1600, the Turks were to

become masters of Italy and Germany; Melancthon boasts of having the

original prophecy in his possession; moreover, the earthquakes which

occur confirm him in his belief.

The human mind had but just set itself up as the only judge of faith,

when the atrocities of the most furious fanaticism already inundated

Germany with blood. Mathias Harlem, the Anabaptist, at the head of a

ferocious troop, orders the churches to be sacked, the sacred ornaments

to be broken in pieces, and all books, except the Bible, to be burnt,

as impious or useless. Established at Munster, which he calls Mont

Sion, he causes all the gold, silver, and precious stones possessed

by the inhabitants to be brought to him, and places them in a common

treasury, and names deacons to distribute them. All his disciples are

compelled to eat in common, to live in perfect equality, and to prepare

for the war which they would have to undertake, _quitting Mount Sion_,

as he himself said, _to subject all the nations of the earth to his

power_. He at length dies in a rash attempt, wherein, like another

Gideon, he undertook nothing less than to exterminate the army of the

impious with a handful of men. Mathias immediately found an heir to his

fanaticism in Becold, perhaps better known under the name of John of

Leyden. This fanatic, a tailor by trade, ran naked through the streets

of Munster, crying out, "_Behold, the king of Sion comes_." He returned

to his house, shut himself up there for three days; and when the

people came to inquire for him, he pretended that he could not speak;

like another Zachary, he made signs that he wanted writing materials,

and wrote that it had been revealed to him by God, that the people

should be governed by judges, in imitation of the people of Israel.

He named twelve judges, choosing the men who were the most attached

to himself; and until the authority of the new magistrates had been

acknowledged, he took the precaution not to allow himself to be seen

by any body. Already was the authority of the new prophet secured in a

certain manner; but not content with the real command, he desired to

surround himself with pomp and majesty; he proposed nothing less than

to have himself proclaimed king. Now the blindness of the sectarian

fanatics was so great, that it was not difficult for him to complete

his mad enterprise; it was enough for him to play off a gross farce. A

goldsmith who had an understanding with the aspirant to royalty, and

was also initiated in the art of prophecy, presented himself before the

judges of Israel, and spoke to them thus: "Behold, this is the will of

the Lord God, the Eternal: as in other times I established Saul over

Israel, and after him David, who was only a simple shepherd, so I now

establish my prophet Becold king of Sion." The judges would not resolve

on abdication; but Becold assured them that he also had had the same

vision, that he had concealed it from humility, but that God having

spoken by another prophet, it was necessary for him to resign himself

to mount the throne, and _accomplish the orders of the Most High_.

The judges persisted in wishing to call the people together; they

assembled in the market-place; there a _prophet_, on the part of God,

presented to Becold a drawn sword, as a sign of the _power of justice,

which was conferred on him over all the earth, to extend to the four

quarters of the world the empire of Sion_; he was proclaimed king with

the most boisterous joy, and solemnly crowned on the 24th of June,

1534. As he had espoused the wife of his predecessor, he raised her to

the royal dignity; but while reserving to her the exclusive privilege

of being queen, he continued to have seventeen wives, in conformity

with the _holy_ liberty which he had proclaimed in this matter. The

orgies, assassinations, atrocities, and ravings of all kinds which

followed cannot be related; it may be affirmed that the sixteen

months of the reign of this madman were only a series of crimes. The

Catholics cried out against such horrible excesses. The Protestants

cried out also; but who was to blame? Was it not they who, after

having proclaimed resistance to the authority of the Church, had thrown

the Bible into the midst of these wretched men, at the risk of their

heads being turned by the ravings of individual interpretation, and of

precipitating them into projects as criminal as they were senseless?

The Anabaptists were well aware of this; and they were exceedingly

indignant with Luther, who condemned them in his writings; and indeed,

what right had he, who had established the principle, to desire to

check its consequences? If Luther found in the Bible that the Pope

was Antichrist, if he arrogated to himself, of his own authority, the

mission of destroying the reign of the Pope, by exhorting all the world

to conspire against him, why could not the Anabaptists say, in their

turn, _that they had intercourse with God, and had received the order

to exterminate all the wicked, and to establish a new kingdom, in which

were to be seen only wise, pious, and innocent men, having become the

masters of all things_.

Hermann preaching the massacre of all the priests and all the

magistrates of the world; David George proclaiming that his doctrine

alone was perfect, that that of the _Old and New Testaments was

imperfect, and that he was the true Son of God_; Nicholas rejecting

faith and worship as useless, treading under foot the fundamental

precepts of morality, and teaching _that it was good to continue in

sin, that grace might abound_; Hacket pretending that the spirit of

the Messiah had descended upon him, and sending two of his disciples

to cry out in the streets of London, "_Behold Christ coming here with

a vase in his hand!_" Hacket himself crying out, at the sight of the

gibbet, and in the agony of punishment, "Jehovah! Jehovah! do you not

see that the heavens open, and that Jesus Christ comes to deliver me?"

are not all these deplorable spectacles, and a hundred others that I

might mention, proofs sufficiently evident that the Protestant system

nourishes and inflames a fearful fanaticism? Venner, Fox, William

Simpson, J. Naylor, Count Zinzendorf, Wesley, Baron Swedenborg, and

other similar names, are sufficient to remind us of an assemblage

of sects so extravagant, and a series of crimes such as would fill

volumes, which would afford us the most ridiculous and the most odious

pictures, the greatest miseries and the most deplorable errors of the

human mind. I have not invented or exaggerated. Open history, consult

authors--I do not mean Catholics, but Protestants, or whatever they may

be--and you will every where find a multitude of witnesses who depose

to the truth of these facts; notorious facts, which have taken place in

the light of day, in great capitals, and in times bordering on our own;

and let it not be supposed that this abundant source of illusion and

fanaticism has been exhausted in the course of ages; it does not seem

that it is yet near being dried up, and Europe appears condemned to

hear the recital of visions, such as those of Baron Swedenborg in the

inn in London; and we shall still see passports for heaven with three

seals given out, like those of Johanna Southcote.

NOTE 12, p. 60.

Nothing is more palpable than the difference which exists on this point

between Protestants and Catholics. On both sides there are persons who

consider themselves to be favored with heavenly visions; but these

visions render Protestants proud, turbulent, and raving mad, while

among Catholics they increase the spirit of humility, peace, and love.

Even in that very sixteenth century, in which the fanaticism of the

Protestants agitated and stained Europe with blood, there lived in

Spain a woman who, in the judgment of unbelievers and Protestants, is

certainly one of those who have been the most deeply infected with

illusion and fanaticism; but has the supposed fanaticism of this woman

ever caused the spilling of a drop of blood, or the shedding of a tear?

Were her visions, like those of Protestants, orders from heaven for the

extermination of men? After the desolate and horrible picture which I

have given in the preceding note, perhaps the reader will be glad to

let his eyes rest upon a spectacle as peaceful as it is beautiful. It

is St. Theresa writing her own life out of pure obedience, and relating

to us her visions with angelic candor and ineffable sweetness. "The

Lord (she says) willed that I should once have this vision: I saw

near to me, on the left hand, an angel in a corporeal form; this is

what I do not usually see, except by a prodigy; although angels often

present themselves to me without my seeing them, as I have said in the

preceding vision. In this the Lord willed that I should see him in the

following manner: he was not tall, but small and very beautiful, his

face all in a flame, and he seemed to be one of the angels very high

in the hierarchy, who apparently are all on fire. Without doubt, he

was one of those who are called seraphim.--These angels do not tell

me their names; but I clearly see that there is so great a difference

among the angels, between some and others, that I do not know how to

express it. I saw in his hands a long dart of gold, which appeared to

me to have some fire at the end of the point. It seemed to me that

the angel buried this dart from time to time in my heart, and made it

penetrate to my bowels, and that when withdrawing it, he carried them

away, leaving me all inflamed with a great love of God." (_Vie de St.

Thérèse_, c. xxix. no. 11.) Another example: "At this moment I see on

my head a dove very different from those of earth; for this one had

no feathers, but wings as it were of the shell of mother of pearl,

which shone brightly. It was larger than a dove; it seemed to me that

I heard the noise of its wings. It moved them almost for the time of

an Ave Maria. The soul was already in such a condition that, herself

swooning away, she also lost sight of this divine dove. The mind grew

tranquil with the presence of such a guest, although it seemed to me

that so wonderful a favor ought to fill it with perturbation and alarm;

but as the soul began to enjoy it, fear departed, repose came with

enjoyment, and the mind remained in ecstacy." (_Vie_, c. xxviii. no.

7.) It would be difficult to find any thing more beautiful, expressed

in more lively colors, and with a more amiable simplicity. It will not

be out of place to copy here two other passages of a different kind,

which, while they enforce what we wish to show, may contribute to

awaken the taste of our nation for a certain class of Spanish writers,

who are every day falling into oblivion with us, while foreigners

seek for them with eagerness, and publish handsome editions of them.

"I was once at office with all the rest; my soul was suddenly fixed

in attention, and it seemed to me to be entirely as a clear mirror

without reverse or side, neither high nor low, but shining every where.

In the midst of it, Christ our Saviour presented himself to me, as

I am accustomed to see Him. He appeared to me to be at once in all

parts of my soul. I saw Him as in a clear mirror, and this mirror also

(I cannot say how) was entirely imprinted on our Lord himself, by a

communication which I cannot describe--a communication full of love. I

know that this vision has been of great advantage to me every time that

I recollect it, principally when I have just received communion. I was

given to understand that when a soul is in a state of mortal sin, this

mirror is covered with great darkness, and is extremely obscure, so

that our Lord cannot appear or be seen therein, although He is always

present as giving being; as to heretics, it is as if the mirror were

broken, which is much worse than if it were obscured. There is a great

difference between seeing this and telling it; it is difficult to make

such a thing understood. I repeat, that this has been very profitable

to me, and also very afflicting, on account of the view of the various

offences by which I have obscured my soul, and have been deprived of

seeing my Lord." (_Vie_, c. xi. no. 4.)

In another place she explains a manner of seeing things in God; she

represents the idea by an image so brilliant and sublime, that we

appear to be reading Malebranche, when developing his famous system.

"We say that the Divinity is like a bright diamond, infinitely larger

than the world; or rather like a mirror, as I have said of the soul in

another vision; except that here it is in a manner so sublime, that I

know not how to exalt it sufficiently. All that we do is seen in this

diamond, which contains all in itself; for there is nothing which is

not comprised in so great a magnitude. It was alarming to me to see in

so short a time so many things assembled in this bright diamond; and I

am profoundly afflicted every time that I think that things so shocking

as my sins appeared to me in this most pure brightness." (_Vie_, c. xl.

no. 7.)

Let us now suppose, with Protestants, that all these visions were

only pure illusions: at least it is evident that they do not pervert

ideas, corrupt morals, or disturb public order; and assuredly, had they

served only to inspire these beautiful pages, we should not know how

to regret the illusion. This is a confirmation of what I have said of

the salutary effects which the Catholic principle produces in souls,

by preventing them from being blinded by pride, or throwing themselves

into dangerous courses. This principle confines them to a sphere where

it is impossible for them to injure any one; but it does not deprive

them of any of their force or energy to do good, supposing that the

inspiration is real. Although it would have been easy for me to cite a

thousand examples, I was compelled, for the sake of brevity, to confine

myself to one, when selecting St. Theresa as one of those who are the

most distinguished in this respect, and because she was contemporary

with the great aberrations of Protestantism. In fine, as she was a

daughter of Spain, I seized the opportunity of recalling her to the

memories of Spaniards, who begin too much to forget her.

NOTE 13, p. 64.

Some of the leaders of the Reformation have left suspicions that they

taught with insincerity, that they did not themselves believe what

they preached, and that they had no other object than to deceive their

proselytes. As I am unwilling to have it imputed to me that I have made

this accusation rashly, I will adduce some proofs in support of my

assertion. Let us hear Luther himself. "Often," he says, "do I think

within myself that I scarcely know where I am, and whether I teach the

truth or not (Sæpe sic mecum cogito, propemodum nescio, quo loco sim,

et utrum veritatem doceam, necne)." (Luther, _Col. Isleb. de Christo_.)

And it is the same man who said: "It is certain that I have received

my dogmas from heaven. I will not allow you to judge of my doctrine,

neither you nor even the angels of heaven (Certum est dogmata mea

habere me de cœlo. Non sinam vel vos vel ipsos angelos de cœlo de mea

doctrina judicare)." (Luther, _contra Reg. Ang._) John Matthei, the

author of many writings on the life of Luther, and who is not scanty

in eulogies on the heresiarch, has preserved a very curious anecdote

touching the convictions of Luther. It is this: "A preacher called John

Musa related to me that he one day complained to Luther that he could

not prevail on himself to believe what he taught to others: '_Blessed

be God_ (said Luther) _that the same thing happens to others as to

myself: I believed till now that THAT was a thing which happened only

to me_.'" (Johann. Matthesius, _conc._ 12.)

The doctrines of infidelity were not long delayed; but would it be

believed that they are found expressed in various parts of Luther's own

works? "It is likely," says he, speaking of the dead, "that, except a

few, they all sleep deprived of feeling." "I think that the dead are

buried in so ineffable and wonderful a sleep, that they feel or see

less than those who sleep an ordinary sleep." "The souls of the dead

enter neither into purgatory nor into hell." "The human soul sleeps;

all its senses buried." "There is no suffering in the abode of the

dead." ("Verisimile est, exceptis paucis, omnes dormire insensibiles."

"Ego puto mortuos sic ineffabili et miro somno sopitos, ut minus

sentiant aut videant, quam hi qui alias dormiunt." "Animæ mortuorum

non ingrediuntur in purgatorium nec infernum." "Anima humana dormit,

omnibus sensibus sepultis." "Mortuorum locus cruciatus nullos habet.")

(Tom. ii. _Epist. Lat. Isleb._ fol. 44; t. vi. _Lat. Wittenberg_,

in cap. ii., cap. xxiii., c. xxv., c. xlii. et xlix. _Genes._ et t.

iv. _Lat. Wittenberg_, fol. 109.) Persons were not wanting ready to

receive such doctrines; and this teaching caused such ravages, that

the Lutheran Brentzen, disciple and successor of Luther, hesitates

not to say: "_Although no one among us publicly professes that the

soul perishes with the body, and that there is no resurrection of the

dead, nevertheless the impure and wholly profane lives which they for

the most part lead, show very clearly that they do not believe that

there is another life. Some even allow words of this kind to escape

them, not only in the intoxication of libations, but even when fasting,

in their familiar intercourse._ (Et si inter nos nulla sit publica

professio quod anima simul cum corpore intereat, et quod non sit

mortuorum resurrectio, tamen impurissima et profanissima illa vita,

quam maxima pars hominum sectatur, perspicue indicat quod non sentiat

vitam post hanc. Nonnullis etiam tales voces, tam ebriis inter pocula,

quam sobriis in familiaribus colloquiis.)" (Brentius, _Hom._ 35, in

cap. 20, Luc.) There were in this same sixteenth century some men who

cared not to give their names to this or that sect, but who professed

infidelity and scepticism without disguise. We know that the famous

Gruet paid with his head for his boldness in this way; and it was not

the Catholics who cut it off, but the Calvinists, who were offended

that this unhappy man had taken the liberty to paint the character

and conduct of Calvin in their true colors. Gruet had also committed

the crime of posting up placards at Geneva, in which he charged the

pretended reformers with inconsistency, on account of the tyranny which

they attempted to exercise over consciences, after having shaken off

the yoke of authority on their own account. This took place soon after

the birth of Protestantism, as the sentence on Gruet was executed in

1549.

Montaigne, who has been pointed out as one of the first sceptics who

acquired reputation in Europe, carries the thing so far, that he does

not even admit the natural law. "_They are not serious_ (he says)

_when, to give some certainty to laws, they say that there are any

laws fixed, perpetual, and immutable, which they call natural, which

are impressed on the human race by the condition of their peculiar

essence_." (Montaigne, _Ess._ l. ii. c. 12.)

We have already seen what Luther thought of death, or at least the

expression which escaped him on this subject; and we cannot be

astonished after that, that Montaigne wished to die like a real

unbeliever, and that he says, speaking of the terrible passage: "_I

plunge my head, insensibly sunk in death, without considering or

observing it, as in a silent and obscure depth, which swallows me up

at once, stifles me in a moment with powerful sleep full of insipidity

and indolence._" (Montaigne, l. iii. c. 9.) But this man, who wished

that death should find him planting his cabbages, and without thinking

of it (_Je veux que la mort me trouve plantant mes choux, mais sans me

soucier d'elle_), was not of the same opinion in his last moments. When

he was near breathing his last, he wished that the holy sacrifice of

the Mass should be celebrated in his apartment, and he expired while

making an effort to raise himself on his bed, in the act of adoring

the sacred Host. We see that he had profited in his heart by some of

his ideas with respect to the Christian religion. "It is pride," he

had said, "that leads man out of the common path, and urges him to

embrace novelties, loving rather to be the chief of a wandering and

undisciplined band, than to be a disciple of the school of truth." In

another place, at once condemning all the dissenting sects, he had

said, "In religious matters it is necessary to adhere to those who are

the established judges of doctrine, and who have legitimate authority,

not to the most learned and the cleverest."

From all that I have just said, it is clear that if I accuse

Protestantism of having been one of the principal causes of infidelity

in Europe, I do not accuse it without reason. I repeat here, that it is

by no means my intention to overlook the efforts of some Protestants

to oppose infidelity; I do not assail _persons_, but _things_, and I

honor merit wherever I find it. In fine, I will add, that if at the

end of the seventeenth century a considerable number of Protestants

displayed a tendency towards Catholicity, we must seek the reason

for it in the progress which they saw infidelity making,--a progress

which it was impossible to check, at least without holding fast to the

anchor of authority which the Catholic Church offered to the whole

world. I cannot, without exceeding the limits which I have marked out

for myself, give a circumstantial detail of the correspondence between

Molanus and the Bishop of Tyna, of Leibnitz and Bossuet. Readers who

desire to become thoroughly acquainted with that affair, may examine it

partly in the works of Bossuet himself, and partly in the interesting

work of M. de Beausset, prefixed to some editions of Bossuet.

NOTE 14, p. 86.

In order to form an idea of the state of knowledge at the time of the

appearance of Christianity, and become convinced that there was nothing

to be expected from the human mind abandoned to its own strength, it

is enough to recall to mind the monstrous sects which every where

abounded in the first ages of the Church, the doctrines whereof

formed the most shapeless, extravagant, and immoral compound that it

is possible to conceive. The names of Cerinthus, Menander, Ebion,

Saturninus, Basilides, Nicolas, Carpocrates, Valentinus, Marcion,

Montanus, and so many others, remind us of the sects in which delirium

was connected with immorality. When we throw a glance over these

philosophico-religious sects, we see that they were capable neither

of conceiving a philosophical system with any degree of concert, nor

of imagining a collection of doctrines and practices to which the

name of religion can be applied. These men overturned, mixed, and

confounded all; Judaism, Christianity, and the recollections of the

ancient schools, were all amalgamated in their deluded heads; what they

never forgot was, to give a loose rein to all kinds of corruption and

obscenity.

In the spectacle of these ages, a wide field is opened to the

conjectures of true philosophy. What would have become of human

knowledge, if Christianity had not come to enlighten the world with her

celestial doctrines; if that divine religion, confounding the foolish

pride of man, had not come to show him how vain and senseless were his

thoughts, and how far he was removed from the path of truth? It is

remarkable that these same men, whose aberrations make us shudder, gave

themselves the name of Gnostics, on account of the superior knowledge

with which they supposed themselves to be endowed. We see that man is

at all times the same.

NOTE 15, p. 115.

I have thought that it would not be useless to transcribe here, word

for word, the canons which I have mentioned in the text. My readers may

thereby acquire for themselves a complete knowledge of what is found

there; and there will be no room left to suppose that the real sense of

the regulations has been perverted in the extracts which I have given.

CANONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS,

_Which show the solicitude of the Church to improve the lot of slaves,

and the various means she has used to accomplish the abolition of

slavery:_

§ I.

_A penance is imposed on the mistress who maltreats her slave_

(_ancillam_).

(Concilium Eliberitanum, anno 305.)

"Si qua domina furore zeli accensa flagris verberaverit ancillam

suam, ita ut in tertium diem animam cum cruciatu effundat; eo quod

incertum sit, voluntate an casu occiderit; si voluntate, post septem

annos, si casu, post quinquennii tempora, acta legitima pœnitentia, ad

communionem placuit admitti. Quod si infra tempora constituta fuerit

infirmata, accipiat communionem." (Canon 5.)

It must be observed, that the word 'ancillam' means a slave properly

so called, and not any kind of servant. This appears, indeed, from the

words _flagris verberaverit_, which express a chastisement reserved for

slaves.

_They excommunicate the master who, of his own authority, beats his

slave to death._

(Concilium Epaoense, anno 517.)

"Si quis servum proprium sine conscientia judicis occiderit,

excommunicatione biennii effusionem sanguinis expiabit." (Canon 34.)

This same regulation is repeated in the 15th canon of the 17th Council

of Toledo, held in 694; even the words of the Council of Epaon are

there copied with very slight change.

(Ibid.) _The slave guilty of an atrocious crime was to escape

corporeal punishments by taking refuge in a church._

"Servus reatu atrociore culpabilis si ad ecclesiam confugerit, a

corporabilibus tantum suppliciis excusetur. De capillis vero, vel

quocumque opere, placuit, a dominis juramenta non exigi." (Canon 39.)

_Very remarkable precautions to prevent masters from maltreating the

slaves who had taken refuge in churches._

(Concilium Aurelianense quintum, anno 549.)

"De servis vero, qui pro qualibet culpa ad ecclesiæ septa confugerint,

id statuimus observandum, ut, sicut in antiquis constitutionibus

tenetur scriptum, pro concessa culpa datis a domino sacramentis,

quisquis ille fuerit, expediatur de venia jam securus. Enim vero si

immemor fidei dominus trascendisse convincitur quod juravit, ut is qui

veniam acceperat, probetur postmodum pro ea culpa qualicumque supplicio

cruciatus, dominus ille qui immemor fuit datæ fidei, sit ab omnium

communione suspensus. Iterum si servus de promissione veniæ datis

sacramentis a domino jam securus exire noluerit, ne sub tali contumacia

requirens locum fugæ, domino fortasse dispereat, egredi nolentem

a domino eum liceat occupari, ut nullam, quasi pro retentatione

servi, quibuslibet modis molestiam aut calumniam patiatur ecclesia:

fidem tamen dominus, quam pro concessa venia dedit, nulla temeritate

transcendat. Quod si aut gentilis dominus fuerit, aut alterius sectæ,

qui a conventu ecclesiæ probatur extraneus, is qui servum repetit,

personas requirat bonæ fidei Christianas, ut ipsi in persona domini

servo præbeant sacramenta: quia ipsi possunt servare quod sacrum est,

qui pro transgressione ecclesiasticum metuunt disciplinam." (Canon 22.)

It is difficult to carry solicitude for the lot of slaves further. This

document is very curious.

_They forbid bishops to mutilate their slaves: they order that the

duty of chastising them should be left to the judge of the town, who,

nevertheless, could not cut off their hair, a punishment which was

considered too ignominious._

(Concilium Emeritense, anno 666.)

"Si regalis pietas pro salute omnium suarum legum dignata est ponere

decreta, cur religio sancta per sancti concilii ordinem non habeat

instituta, quæ omnino debent esse cavenda? Ideoque placuit huic sancto

concilio, ut omnis potestas episcopalis modum suæ ponat iræ; nec

pro quolibet excessu cuilibet ex familia, ecclesiæ aliquod corporis

membrorum sua ordinatione præsumat extirpare aut auferre. Quod si talis

emerserit culpa, advocato judice civitatis, ad examen ejus deducatur

quod factum fuisse asseritur. Et quia omnino justum est, ut pontifex

sævissimam non impendat vindictam; quidquid coram judice verius

patuerit, per disciplinæ severitatem absque turpi decalvatione maneat

emendatum." (Canon 15.)

_Priests are forbidden to have their slaves mutilated._

(Concilium Toletanum undecimum, anno 675.)

"His a quibus domini sacramenta tractanda sunt, judicium sanguinis

agitare non licet: et ideo magnopere talium excessibus prohibendum

est, ne indiscretæ præsumptionis motibus agitati, aut quod morte

plectendum est, sententia propria judicare præsumant, aut truncationes

quaslibet membrorum quibuslibet personis aut per se inferant, aut

inferendas præcipiant. Quod si quisquam horum immemor præceptorum, aut

ecclesiæ suæ familiis, aut in quibuslibet personis tale quid fecerit,

et concessi ordinis honore privatus, et loco suo, perpetuo damnationis

teneatur religatus ergastulo: cui tamen communio exeunti ex hac vita

non neganda est, propter domini misericordiam, _qui non vult peccatoris

mortem, sed ut convertatur et vivat_." (Canon 6.)

It should be remarked, that the word _familia_, employed in the two

last canons which we have just cited, should be understood of slaves.

The real meaning of this word is clearly shown us by the 74th canon of

the 4th Council of Toledo.

"De _familiis_ ecclesiæ constituere presbyteros et diaconos per

parochias liceat ..... ea tamen ratione ut _antea manumissi libertatem

status sui percipiant_."

We see this word employed in the same sense by Pope St. Gregory.

(Epist. xliv. l. 4.)

_A penance is imposed on the master who kills his slave of his own

authority._

(Concilium Wormatiense, anno 868.)

"Si quis servum proprium sine conscientia judicum qui tale quid

commiserit, quod morte sit dignum, occiderit, excommunicatione vel

pœnitentia biennii, reatum sanguinis emendabit." (Canon 38.)

"Si qua femina furore zeli accensa, flagris verberaverit ancillam suam,

ita ut intra tertium diem animam suam cum cruciatu effundat, eo quod

incertum sit voluntate, an casu occiderit; si voluntate, septem annos,

si casu, per quinque annorum tempora legitimam peragat pœnitentiam."

(Canon 39.)

_They check the violence of those who, to revenge themselves for the

asylum granted to slaves, take possession of the goods of the Church._

(Concilium Arausicanum primum, anno 441.)

"Si quis autem mancipia clericorum pro suis mancipiis ad ecclesiam

fugientibus crediderit occupanda, per omnes ecclesias districtissima

damnatione feriatur." (Canon 6.)

§ II.

(Ibid.) _They check all attempts made against the liberty of slaves

enfranchised by the Church, or who have been recommended to her by

will._

"In ecclesia manumissos, vel per testamentum ecclesiæ commendatos,

si quis in servitutem, vel obsequium, vel ad colonariam conditionem

imprimere tentaverit, animadversione ecclesiastica coerceatur." (Canon

7.)

_They secure the liberty of those who have received the benefit of

manumission in the Churches. The latter are enjoined to take upon

themselves the defence of the enfranchised._

(Concilium quintum Aurelianense, anno 549.)

"Et quia plurimorum suggestione comperimus, eos qui in ecclesiis juxta

patrioticam consuetudinem a servitiis fuerunt absoluti, pro libito

quorumcumque iterum ad servitium revocari, impium esse tractavimus, ut

quod in ecclesia Dei consideratione a vinculo servitutis absolvitur,

irritum habeatur. Ideo pietatis causa communi concilio placuit

observandum, ut quæcumque mancipia ab ingenuis dominis servitute

laxantur, in ea libertate maneant, quam tunc a dominis perceperunt.

Hujusmodi quoque libertas si a quocumque pulsata fuerit, cum justitia

ab ecclesiis defendatur, præter eas culpas, pro quibus leges collatas

servis revocare jusserunt libertates." (Canon 7.)

_The Church is charged with the defence of the enfranchised, whether

they have been emancipated within her enclosure, whether they have

been so by letter or testament, or have gained their liberty by

prescription. They restrain the arbitrariness of the judges towards

these unfortunate persons. It is decided that the Bishops shall take

cognizance of these causes._

(Concilium Matisconense secundum, anno 585.)

"Quæ dum postea universo cœtui secundum consuetudinem recitata

innotescerent, Prætextatus et Pappulus viri beatissimi dixerunt:

Decernat itaque, et de miseris libertis vestræ auctoritatis vigor

insignis, qui ideo plus a judicibus affliguntur, quia sacris sunt

commendati ecclesiis: ut si quas quispiam dixerit contra eos actiones

habere, non audeat eos magistratus contradere; sed in episcopi tantum

judicio, in cujus præsentia litem contestans, quæ sunt justitiæ

ac veritatis audiat. Indignum est enim, ut hi qui in sacrosancta

ecclesia jure noscuntur legitimo manumissi, aut per epistolam, aut

per testamentum, aut per longinquitatem temporis libertatis jure

fruuntur, a quolibet injustissime inquietentur. Universa sacerdotalis

Congregatio dixit: Justum est, ut contra calumniatorum omnium versutias

defendantur, qui patrocinium immortalis ecclesiæ concupiscunt. Et

quicumque a nobis de libertis latum decretum, superbiæ ausu prævaricare

tentaverit, irreparabili damnationis suæ sententia feriatur. Sed si

placuerit episcopo ordinarium judicem, aut quemlibet alium sæcularem,

in audientiam eorum accersiri, cum libuerit fiat, et nullus alius

audeat causas pertractare libertorum nisi episcopus cujus interest, aut

is cui idem audiendum tradiderit." (Canon 7.)

_The defence of the freed is confided to the priests._

(Concilium Parisiense quintum, anno 614.)

"Liberti quorumcumque ingenuorum a sacerdotibus defensentur, nec ad

publicum ulterius revocentur. Quod si quis ausu temerario eos imprimere

voluerit, aut ad publicum revocare, et admonitus per pontificem ad

audientiam venire neglexerit, aut emendare quod perpetravit distulerit,

communione privetur." (Canon 5.)

_The enfranchised recommended to the Churches shall be protected by the

Bishops._

(Concilium Toletanum tertium, anno 589.)

"De libertis autem id Dei præcipiunt sacerdotes, ut si qui ab episcopis

facti sunt secundum modum quo canones antiqui dant licentiam, sint

liberi; et tantum a patrocinio ecclesiæ tam ipsi quam ab eis progeniti

non recedant. Ab aliis quoque libertati traditi, et ecclesiis

commendati, patrocinio episcopali tegantur, a principe hoc episcopus

postulet." (Canon 6.)

_The Church undertakes to defend the liberty and the property acquired

by industry of the enfranchised who have been recommended to her._

(Concilium Toletanum quartum, anno 633.)

"Liberti qui a quibuscumque manumissi sunt, atque ecclesiæ patrocinio

commendati existunt, sicut regulæ antiquorum patrum constituerunt,

sacerdotali defensione a cujuslibet insolentia protegantur; sive in

statu libertatis eorum, seu in peculio quod habere noscuntur." (Cap.

72.)

_The Church will defend the enfranchised: a regulation which does not

distinguish whether they have been recommended to her or not._

(Concilium Agathense, anno 506.)

"Libertos legitime a dominis suis factos ecclesia, si necessitas

exegerit, tueatur; quod si quis ante audientiam, aut pervadere, aut

expoliare præsumpserit, ab ecclesia repellatur." (Canon 29.)

§ III.

_The Church shall regard the ransom of captives as her first care; she

shall give their interests the preference over her own, however bad

may be the state of her affairs._

"Sicut omnino grave est, frustra ecclesiastica ministeria venundare,

sic iterum culpa est, imminente hujusmodi necessitate, res maxime

desolatæ Ecclesiæ captivis suis præponere, et in eorum redemptione

cessare." (Caus. xii. q. 2, canon 16.)

_Remarkable words of St. Ambrose touching the ransom of captives.

To perform this pious duty, the holy Bishop breaks up and sells the

sacred vessels._

(S. Ambrosius de Off. lib. ii. cap. 15.)

(§ 70.) "Summa etiam liberalitas captos redimere, eripere ex hostium

manibus, subtrahere neci homines, et maxime feminas turpidini, reddere

parentibus liberos, parentes liberis, cives patriæ, restituere. Nota

sunt hæc nimis Illyriæ vastitate et Thraciæ: quanti ubique venales

erant captivi orbe....

Ibid. (§ 71.) "Præcipua est igitur liberalitas, redimere captivos

et maxime ab hoste barbaro, qui nihil deferat humanitatis ad

misericordiam, nisi quod avaritia reservaverit ad redemptionem."

Ib. l. ii. c. 2 (§ 13.) "_Ut nos aliquando in invidiam incidimus, quod

confregerimus vasa mystica, ut captivos redimeremus_, quod Arianis

displicere potuerat, nec tam factum displiceret, quam ut esset quod in

nobis reprehenderetur."

These noble and charitable sentiments were not those of St. Ambrose

only; his words are but the expression of the feelings of the whole

Church. Without referring to numberless proofs which I might adduce

here, and before I pass to the canons which I mean to insert, I will

copy some passages from a touching letter of St. Cyprian, which

contains the motives which animated the Church in her pious enterprise,

and gives a lively description of her zeal and charity in these

admirable efforts.

"Cyprianus Januario, Maximo, Proculo, Victori, Modiano, Nemesiano,

Nampulo, et Honorato, fratribus salutem. Cum maximo animi nostri gemitu

et non sine lacrymis legimus litteras vestras, fratres carissimi, quas

ad nos pro dilectionis vestræ sollicitudine de fratrum nostrorum et

sororum captivitate fecistis. Quis enim non doleat in ejusmodi casibus,

aut quis non dolorem fratris sui suum proprium computet cum loquatur

apostolus Paulus et dicat: _Si patitur unum membrum, compatiuntur et

cætera membra: si lætatur membrum unum, collætantur et cætera membra._

(1 ad Cor. xii. 26.) Et alio loco: _Quis infirmatur, inquit, et non ego

infirmor?_ (2 ad Cor. xi. 29.) Quare nunc et nobis captivitas fratrum

nostra captivitas computanda est, et periclitantium dolor pro nostro

dolore numerandus est, cum sit scilicet adunationis nostræ corpus

unum, et non tantum dilectio sed et religio instigare nos debeat et

confortare ad fratrum membra redimenda. Nam cum denuo apostolus Paulus

dicat: _Nescitis quia templum Dei estis, et Spiritus Dei habitat in

vobis?_ (1 ad Cor. iii. 16), etiamsi charitas nos minus adigeret ad

opem fratribus ferendam, considerandum tamen hoc in loco fuit, Dei

templum esse quæ capta sunt, nec pati nos longa cessatione et neglecto

dolore debere, ut diu Dei templa captiva sint; sed quibus possumus

viribus elaborare et velociter gerere ut Christum judicem et Dominum

et Deum nostrum promereamur obsequiis nostris. Nam cum dicat Paulus

apostolus, _Quotquot in Christo baptizati estis, Christum induistis_

(ad Gal. iii. 27,) in captivis fratribus nostrus contemplandus est

Christus et redimendus de periculo captivitatis, qui nos de diaboli

faucibus exuit, nunc ipse qui manet et habitat in nobis de barbarorum

manibus exuatur, et redimatur nummaria quantitate qui nos cruce redemit

et sanguine.

* * * * *

Quantus vero communis omnibus nobis mœror atque cruciatus est de

periculo virginum quæ illic tenentur? pro quibus non tantum libertatis,

sed et pudoris jactura plangenda est, nec tam vincula barbarorum quam

lenonum et lupanarium stupra defienda sunt, ne membra Christo dicata

et in æternum continentiæ honorum pudica virtute devota, insultantium

libidine et contagione fœdentur? Quæ omnia istic secundum litteras

vestras fraternitas nostra cogitans et dolenter examinans, prompte

omnes et libenter ac largiter subsidia nummaria fratribus contulerunt.

* * * * *

Misimus autem sestertia centum millia nummorum, quæ istic in

ecclesia cui de Domini indulgentia præsumus, cleri et plebis apud

nos consistentis collatione, collecta sunt, quæ vos illic pro vestra

diligentia dispensabitis.

* * * * *

Si tamen ad explorandam nostri anima charitatem, et examinandi nostri

pectoris fidem tale aliquid acciderit, nolite cunctari nuntiare hæc

nobis litteris vestris, pro certo habentes ecclesiam nostram et

fraternitatem istic universam, ne hæc ultra fiant precibus orare, si

facta fuerint, libenter et largiter subsidia præstare." (Epist. 60.)

Thus the zeal for the redemption of captives, a zeal which was exerted

with so much ardor in later ages, had appeared in the earliest times of

the Church; this zeal was founded on grand and sublime motives, which

render this work in some measure divine, and secure to those who devote

themselves to it an unfading crown. Important information on this

subject will be found also in the works of St. Gregory. (V. lib. iii.

ep. 16; lib. iv. ep. 17; lib. vi. ep. 35; lib. vii. ep. 26, 28, and 38;

lib. ix. ep. 17.)

_The property of the Church employed for the redemption of captives._

(Concilium Matisconense secundum, anno 585.)

"Unde statuimus ac decernimus, ut mos antiquus a fidelibus reparetur;

et decimas ecclesiasticis famulantibus ceremoniis populus omnis

inferat, quas sacerdotes aut in pauperum usum _aut in captivorum

redemptionem prærogantes_, suis orationibus pacem populo ac salutem

impetrent: si quis autem contumax nostris statutis saluberrimis fuerit,

a membris ecclesiæ omni tempore separetur." (Canon 5.)

_It is allowed to break up the sacred vessels, in order to devote the

price of them to the redemption of captives._

(Concilium Rhemense, anno 625 vel 630.)

"Si quis episcopus, excepto si evenerit ardua necessitas pro

redemptione captivorum ministeria sancta frangere pro qualicumque

conditione presumpserit, ab officio cessabit ecclesiæ." (Canon 22.)

The following canon informs us that the Bishops gave letters of

recommendation to the captives; they are desired to state therein the

date and price of the ransom; they are requested also to mention there

the wants of those who are thus restored to liberty.

(Concilium Lugdunense tertium, anno 583.)

"Id etiam de epistolis placuit captivorum, ut ita sint sancti

pontifices cauti, ut in servitio pontificibus consistentibus qui eorum

manu vel subscriptione agnoscat epistolæ aut quælibet insinuationum

litteræ dari debeant, quatenus de subscriptionibus nulla ratione

possit Deo propitio dubitari: et epistola commendationis pro

necessitate cujuslibet promulgata dies datarum et pretia constituta,

vel necessitates captivorum quos cum epistolis dirigunt, ibidem

inserantur." (Canon 2.)

_Excess into which some ecclesiastics allowed themselves to fall, by

an indiscreet zeal in favor of captives._

(Synodus S. Patricii, Auxilii et Isernini Episcoporum in Hibernia

celebrata, circa annum Christi 450 vel 456.)

"Si quis clericorum voluerit juvare captivo cum suo pretio illi

subveniat, nam si per furtum illum inviolaverit, blasphemantur multi

clerici per unum latronem, qui sic fecerit excommunionis sit." (Canon

32.)

The church employed her property in the ransom of captives; and when

the latter had afterwards acquired the means of repaying the sums

advanced for them, she refused all reimbursement and graciously gave up

the price of the ransom.

(Ex epistolis S. Gregorii.)

"Sacrorum canonum statuta et legalis permittit auctoritates, lici

res ecclesiasticas in redemptionem captivorum impendi. Et ideo, quia

edocti a vobis sumus, ante annos fere 18, virum reverendissimum

quemdam Fabium, Episcopum Ecclesiæ Firmanæ, libras 11 argenti de eadem

ecclesia pro redemptione vestra, ac patris vestri Passivi, fratris et

co-episcopi nostri, tunc vero clerici, necnon matris vestræ, hostibus

impendisse, atque ex hoc quamdam formidinem vos habere, ne hoc

quod datum est, a vobis quolibet tempore repetatur, hujus præcepti

auctoritate suspicionem vestram prævidimus auferendam; constituentes,

nullam vos exinde, hæredesque vestros quolibet tempore repetitionis

molestiam sustinere, nec a quoquam vobis aliquam objici quæstionem."

(L. 7, ep. 14, et hab. Cuas. 12, q. 2, c. 15.)

_The property of the Church served to ransom captives._

(Concilium Vernense secundum, anno 844.)

"Ecclesiæ facultates quas reges et reliqui christiani Deo voverunt,

ad alimentum servorum Dei et pauperum, ad exceptionem hospitum,

_redemptionis captivorum_, atque templorum Dei instaurationem, nunc

in usu sæcularium detinentur. Hinc multi servi Dei penuriam cibi et

potus ac vestimentorum patiuntur, pauperes consuetam eleemosynam non

accipiunt, negliguntur hospites, _fraudantur captivi_, et fama omnium

merito laceratur." (Canon 12.)

Let us observe in this canon the use which the Church made of her

property; after having supported the clergy, and maintained divine

worship, she devoted it to succor the poor, travellers or pilgrims,

and to redeem captives. I make this observation here, because the

opportunity offers; not because this canon is the only proof of the

excellent use which the Church made of her property. Indeed, a great

number of others might be cited, beginning with the canons called

Apostolical. It is necessary also to remark the expression which is

sometimes made use of to stigmatize the wickedness of the spoilers of

the Church, or of those who administer her property badly; they are

called _pauperum necatores_, 'murderers of the poor;' to make it well

understood that one of the principal objects of this property is the

support of the necessitous.

§ IV.

_Those who attempt to take away the liberty of persons are

excommunicated._

(Concilium Lugdunense secundum, anno 566.)

"Et qui peccatis facientibus multi in perniciem animæ suæ ita conati

sunt, aut conantur assurgere, ut animas longa temporis quiete sine

ulla status sui competitione viventes, nunc improba proditione atque

traditione, aut captivaverint aut captivare conentur, si juxta

præceptum domini regis emendare distulerint, quousque hos quos

obduxerunt, in loco in quo longum tempus quiete vixerint, restaurare

debeant, ecclesiæ communione priventur." (Canon 3.)

We see in this canon that private individuals, by too frequent

attempts, employed violence to reduce free persons to slavery. At

this time, on account of the irruptions of the barbarians, the state

of Europe was such, that public authority, weak in the extreme, did

not, properly speaking, exist. This is the reason why it is so noble

to see the Church struggling every where to support public order, to

defend liberty, and excommunicating those who attacked that liberty, in

contempt of the commands of the king.

_The same abuse repressed._

(Concilium Rhemense, anno 625 vel 630.)

"Si quis ingenuum aut liberum ad servitium inclinare voluerit, aut

fortasse jam fecit, et commonitus ab episcopo se de inquietudine ejus

revocare neglexerit, aut emendare noluerit, tamquam calumniæ reum

placuit sequestrari." (Canon 17.)

_It is declared that he who leads away a Christian to sell him, is

guilty of homicide._

(Concilium Confluentinum, anno 922.)

"Item interrogatum est, quid de eo faciendum sit qui christianum

hominem seduxerit, et sic vendiderit: responsumque est ab omnibus,

homicidii reatum, ipsum hominem sibi contrahere." (Canon 7.)

_The traffic in men, practised at that time in England, is proscribed;

it is forbidden to sell men like ignoble animals._

(Concilium Londinense, anno 1102.)

"Ne quis illud _nefarium negotium_ quo hactenus in Anglia solebant

homines sicut bruta animalia venundari, deinceps ullatenus facere

præsumat."

We see, from the canon which I have just cited, to what point the

Church had attained in all that affects true civilization. We are in

the nineteenth century, and it is considered that a great step has been

gained in modern civilization by the consent of the great European

nations to sign treaties to suppress the slave-trade; now the canon

which we have just cited tells us, that at the beginning of the twelfth

century, and in that very town of London, where the famous Convention

was lately held, the traffic in men was forbidden, and stigmatized as

it deserves. _Nefarium negotium_--detestable trade--it is called by the

Council: _infamous traffic_, it is called by modern civilization, the

unconscious heir of the thoughts and even the words of those men who

are treated by it as barbarians, of those Bishops, whom calumny has

more or less represented as a band of conspirators against the liberty

and happiness of the human race.

_It is ordered that persons who have been sold or pledged, shall

immediately recover their liberty by restoring the price received; it

is ordained that more shall not be required of them than they shall

have received for their liberty._

(Synodus incerti loci, circa annum 616.)

"De ingenuis qui se pro pecunia aut alia revendiderint, vel

oppignoraverint, placuit ut quandoquidem pretium, quantum pro ipsis

datum est, invenire potuerunt, absque dilatione ad statum suæ

conditionis reddito pretio reformentur, nec amplius quam pro eis datum

est requiratur. Et interim, si vir ex ipsis, uxorem ingenuam habuerit,

aut mulier ingenuum habuerit maritum, filii qui ex ipsis nati fuerint,

in ingenuitate permaneant." (Canon 14.)

The text of this Council, held, according to some, at Boneuil, well

deserves to have some remarks made on it. The beneficial regulation

which allowed a man who had been sold to regain his liberty by paying

the sum received, checked an evil which was deeply rooted in the

customs of Gaul at that time, for we find it at a very early period. We

know, indeed, from Cæsar, whose testimony we have cited in the text,

that many men of that country sold their liberty to relieve themselves

from difficulties. Let us also remark the regulation contained in the

same canon with respect to the children of the person who was sold;

whether it be the father or mother, the canon prescribes, in both

cases, that the children shall be free; and it here departs from the

well known rule of civil law: _partus sequitur ventrem_.

§ V.

_It is forbidden to give up to the Jews the slaves who have taken

refuge in the churches; it matters little whether they have chosen

that asylum because their masters obliged them to things contrary to

the Christian faith, or because they have been maltreated by them

after having been once withdrawn from the sacred asylum under the

promise of pardon._

(Concilium Aurelianense tertium, anno 538.)

"De mancipiis Christianis, quæ in Judæorum servitio detinentur, si eis

quod Christiana religio vetat, a dominis imponitur, aut si eos quos de

ecclesia excusatos tollent, pro culpa quæ remissa est, affligere aut

cædere fortasse præsumpserint, et ad ecclesiam iterato confugerint,

nullatenus a sacerdote reddantur, nisi pretium offeratur ac detur, quod

mancipia ipsa valere pronuntiaverit justa taxatio." (Canon 13.)

_The precept given in the preceding canon is renewed; a precept

contained in the canon which we have just cited._

(Concilium Aurelianense quartum, anno 541.)

"Cum prioribus canonibus jam fuerit definitum ut de mancipiis

Christianis, quæ apud Judæos sunt, si ad ecclesiam confugerint, et

redimi se postulaverint, etiam ad quoscumque Christianos refugerint, et

servire Judæis noluerint, taxato et oblato a fidelibus justo pretio, ab

eorum dominio liberentur, ideo statuimus, ut tam justa constitutio ab

omnibus catholicis conservetur." (Canon 30.)

_The Jew who perverts a Christian slave is punished with the loss of

all his slaves._ (Ibid.)

"Hoc etiam decernimus observandum, ut quicumque Judæus proselytum, qui

advena dicitur, Judæum facere præsumpserit, aut Christianum factum ad

Judaicam superstitionem adducere; vel si Judæus Christianam ancillam

suam sibi crediderit sociandam; vel si de parentibus Christianis natum,

Judæum sub promissione fecerit libertatis, mancipiorum amissione

mulctetur." (Canon 31.)

_Jews are forbidden to have Christian slaves henceforth; as to those

who are in their power, all Christians are allowed to ransom them by

paying their Jewish masters twelve solidi._

(Concilium Matisconense primum, anno 581.)

"Et liceat quid de Christianis qui aut de captivitatis incursu, aut

fraudibus Judæorum servitio implicantur, debeat observari, non solum

canonicis statutis, sed et legum beneficio pridem fuerit constitutum;

tamen quia nunc item quo rumdam querela exorta est, quosdam Judæos,

per civitates aut municipia consistentes, in tantam insolentiam et

proterviam prorupisse, ut nec reclamantes Christianos liceat vel

pretio de eorum servitute absolvi: idcirco præsenti concilio, Deo

auctore, sancimus, ut nullus Christianus Judæos deinceps debeat

deservire; sed datis pro quolibet bono mancipio 12 solidis, ipsum

mancipium quicumque Christianus, seu ad ingenuitatem, seu ad servitium,

licentiam habeat redimendi; quia nefas est, ut quos Christus Dominus

sanguinis sui effusione redemit, persecutorum vinculis maneant

irretiti. Quod si acquiescere his quæ statuimus quicumque Judæus

noluerit, quamdiu ad pecuniam constitutam venire distulerit, liceat

mancipio ipsi cum Christianis ubicumque voluerit habitare. Illud etiam

specialiter sancientes, quod si quis Judæus Christianum mancipium ad

errorem Judaicum convictus fuerit suasisse, ut ipse mancipio careat, et

legandi damnatione plectatur." (Canon 16.)

* * * * *

The preceding canon is almost equivalent to a decree for the entire

emancipation of Christian slaves; for if, on the one hand, Jews were

forbidden to acquire new Christian slaves, and, on the other, those who

were in their possession could be redeemed by the first Christian who

came, it is clear that the charity of the faithful thus finding a door

open to it, the number of Christian slaves who groaned in the power of

the Jews must have diminished in an extraordinary manner. It is not

said that these canonical regulations of the Church from the first

moment obtained all the result which was intended; but, as she was

the only power that remained standing at that time, and the only one

that exercised influence on the nations, it cannot be doubted that her

regulations were infinitely advantageous to those in whose favor they

were established.

_Jews are forbidden to acquire Christian slaves. If a Jew perverts to

Judaism, or circumcises a Christian slave, the latter becomes free

without having any thing to pay to his master._

(Concilium Toletanum tertium, anno 589.)

"Suggerente concilio, id gloriossimus dominus noster canonibus

inserendum præcipit, ut Judæis non liceat Christianas habere uxores,

_neque mancipia comparare in usus proprios_....

"Si qui vero Christiani ab eis Judaico ritu sunt maculati, vel etiam

circumcisi, non reddito pretio ad libertatem et religionem redeant

Christianam." (Canon 14.)

This canon is remarkable, both because it protects the conscience of

the slave, and imposes on masters a punishment favorable to liberty.

This manner of checking the arbitrary power of those who violated the

consciences of their slaves, is found, during the following century, in

a curious example contained in the collection of the laws of Ina, queen

of the West Saxons. It is this:

_If a master makes his slave work on Sunday, the slave becomes free._

(Leges Ynæ reginæ Saxonum Occiduorum, anno 692.)

"Si servus operetur die dominica per præceptum domini sui, sit liber."

(Leg. iii.)

Another curious example:

_If a master gives meat to a slave on a fasting-day, the slave becomes

free._

(Concilium Berghamstedæ anno 5^o Withredi regis Cantii, id est Christi

697: sub Bertualdo Cantuariensi archiepiscopo celebratum. Hæc sunt

judicia Withredi regis Cantuariorum.)

"Si quis servo suo carnem in jejunio dediderit comedendam, servus liber

exeat." (Canon 15.)

_It is definitively forbidden for Jews to have Christian slaves;

all contravention of this order shall deprive the Jews of all their

slaves, who shall obtain their liberty from the prince._

(Concilium Toletanum quartum, anno 633.)

"Ex decreto gloriosissimi principis hoc sanctum elegit concilium, ut

Judæis non liceat Christianos servos habere, nec Christiana mancipia

emere, nec cujusquam consequi largitate: nefas est enim ut membra

Christi serviant Antichristi ministris. Quod si deinceps servos

Christianos, vel ancillas Judæi habere præsumpserint, sublati ab eorum

dominatu libertatem a principe consequantur." (Canon 66.)

_It is forbidden to sell Christian slaves to Jews or Gentiles; if such

sales have been made, they shall be annulled._

(Concilium Rhemense, anno 625.)

"Ut Christiani Judæis vel Gentilibus non vendantur; et si quis

Christianorum necessitate cogente mancipia sua Christiana elegerit

venundanda, non aliis nisi tantum Christianis expendat. Nam si

paganis aut Judæis vendiderit, communione privetur, et emptio careat

firmitate." (Canon 11.)

No precaution was too great in those unhappy times. It might appear at

first that such regulations were an effect of the intolerance of the

Church with respect to the Jews and Pagans; and yet, in reality, they

were a barrier against the barbarism which invaded all; they were a

guarantee of the most sacred rights of man; so much the more necessary,

as all the others, it may be said, had disappeared. Read the document

which we are about to transcribe; you will there see that barbarism was

carried so far, that slaves were sold to the Pagans to be sacrificed.

(Gregorius Papa III. ep. ad Bonifacium Archiepiscopum, anno 731.)

"Hoc quoque inter alia crimina agi in partibus illis dixisti, quod

quidam ex fidelibus ad _immolandum_ paganis sua venundent mancipia.

Quod ut magnopere corrigere debeas, frater, commonemus, nec sinas fieri

ultra; scelus est enim et impietas. Eis ergo qui hæc perpetraverunt,

similem homicidæ indices pœnitentiam."

These excesses must have occupied the active attention of the Church,

as we see the Council of Liptines, held in 743, again insist on this

point, and forbid Christian slaves to be given up to the Gentiles.

"Et ut mancipia Christiana paganis non tradantur." (Canon 7.)

_It is forbidden to sell a Christian slave out of the territory

comprised within the kingdom of Clovis._

(Concilium Cabilonense, anno 650.)

"Pietatis est maximæ et religionis intuitus, ut captivitatis vinculum

omnino a Christianis redimatur. Unde sancta Synodus noscitur censuisse,

ut nullus mancipium extra fines vel terminos, qui ad regnum domini

Clodovei regis pertinent, debeat venundare, ne quod absit, per tale

commercium, aut captivitatis vinculo, vel quod pejus est, Judaica

servitute mancipia Christiana teneantur implicita." (Canon 9.)

This canon, which forbids the selling of Christian slaves out of the

kingdom of Clovis, for fear that they should fall into the power of

the Pagans and Jews, and the other of the Council of Rheims, cited

above, which contains a similar regulation, are worthy of remark,

under two aspects; they show, 1st, the high respect which we ought

to have for the soul of man, even of him who is a slave, since it

is forbidden to sell him where his conscience might be in danger: a

respect which it was very important to maintain, both in order to

eradicate the erroneous maxims of antiquity on this point, and because

it was the first step towards emancipation. 2d. By limiting the power

of sale, there was introduced into that kind of property a law which

distinguished it from others, and placed it in a different and more

elevated category. This was a great step made towards declaring open

war against this property itself, and abolishing it by legitimate means.

_Clerics who sold their slaves to Jews are severely reproved: they are

threatened with alarming punishments._

(Concilium decimum Toletanum, anno 656.)