When the peace of 1815 had allayed the storms which had shaken

thrones and nations, the popular mind experienced a calm approaching

to the void. The illusions of glory, the dreams of distant conquests

vanished. There was now leisure to breathe, to think of oneself, and

the want of something, upon which to fix the mind, was experienced.

One class turned itself to the cultivation of the sciences,

literature, social questions, historical studies, or to industrial

works; another, much less numerous, sought from religious belief a

satisfaction of the wants of their conscience and their heart.

The freedom once more permitted of making ideas known, facilitated

and gave life to this religious movement: not that faith is unable to

grow beneath outward oppression, for we may see splendid examples to

the contrary in the history of Protestantism; but the independence of

thought and action is the true atmosphere of spiritual existence.

Finally, the return to religious subjects was strengthened by the

relations that were re-established between the Protestants of

France and those of other countries. The Reformation had, for half

a century, inspired great works, and founded great associations; it

had despatched its missionaries to the extremities of the globe, and

distributed the Bible in every human tongue by millions of copies.

When French Protestantism was brought into contact with these noble

aspirations of Christian life, it learned to know its duties better,

and to fulfil them with greater fidelity.

Many pious souls resumed the ancient faith of the Reformed churches,

and displayed in acts of religion and proselytism, an energy, a zeal,

and an ardour of which later generations had lost the tradition. This

change was not always well understood, not only by the masses, but by

men of superior intelligence, and provoked painful dissensions. The

names of Methodist and Rationalist, the one borrowed from Germany,

the other from England, became party cries.

These divisions just began to appear when Protestant France lost a

man, who, having inherited the doctrines taught in the churches of

the desert, yet having abstained from the new conflicts, might have

given a lofty and powerful impulse to theological studies, from the

position he occupied in the faculty of Montauban. His faith, his

learning, and his worth, entitle him to a place in this history.

M. Daniel Encontre was born at Nismes in 1762. His father, who had

been one of the pastors of the desert, was only able to bestow

upon his education the rare opportunities of leisure afforded by

a wandering and restless life. But the young Encontre did more by

himself than others would have done under the most able masters. “In

him was again witnessed the phenomenon, which had been in former

times so much admired in the youth of Pascal. Debarred from the

privilege of studying mathematics, he divined them. Before the age of

nineteen, without books, obliged to work in secret and by stealth,

his power of genius was such that he succeeded in penetrating so far

into the science as to reach the infinitesimal calculus, the object

of his astonishing aspiration. He cultivated at the same time, and

with the same energy, under the eyes, and with his father’s consent,

the study of the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin languages; and his success

was so surprising, particularly in the two last, that they were soon

as familiar to him as his mother tongue.”[144]

He went to the academies of Lausanne and Geneva to finish his

studies, and exhibited there so much superiority, that his

fellow-students compared him to their most skilful professors. His

religious convictions were not without their troubles and storms; but

he returned to the faith by the avenue of doubt, and rested in it

more firmly.

On his return to France, Encontre preached the Gospel to the desert

flocks. His success in preaching was, however, small, because he

was deficient in those physical qualities, without which the best

discourses do not engage [the attention of] the multitude. His

stature was small, his voice husky, his action more hasty than

imposing. An extinction of voice intervened to decide the question

with his conscience; and he quitted the pulpit of the house of

worship for the chair of the academies.

The Revolution, which deprived so many of their lives, did not leave

his existence undisturbed. He sought an asylum at Montpellier, where,

says the biographer whom we have quoted, “he was reduced, in order to

earn his bread, to give lessons in stone-cutting to master masons and

workmen. He who was worthy of teaching by the side of a Lagrange, a

Laharpe, or a Fourcroy, thought himself even fortunate in being able

to procure employment in the quarries.” Nor did he forget, in these

times of proscription, that he was the minister of Jesus Christ, and

at the peril of his life he celebrated baptisms, blessed marriages,

gave religious instruction, and supported the piety of the faithful

at Montpellier and in its neighbourhood.

At the opening of the central schools, he presented himself to

contest for the chair of literature. Another candidate, fearing

the rivalry of M. Encontre, besought him to withdraw, which he

immediately did, and offered himself successfully for the chair of

pure mathematics. It was only such a man, who could do such an act:

his encyclopædical mind, equally versed in literature, the sciences,

and theology, was profound and original in all. The celebrated

Fourcroy has said of him, “I have seen in France two or three heads

that might be compared with his, but I have never found one that was

superior.”

Appointed dean of the faculty of sciences at Montpellier, he

exercised a legitimate ascendancy, and enriched the collections

of the learned societies with many excellent papers. A career, as

peaceful as it was honourable, lay before him, when the voice of

the Reformed churches called him, in 1814, to the professorship

of theology of Montauban. M. Encontre sacrificed everything to a

vocation pointed out to him under the austere image of duty, and only

expressed his fear that he should be found unequal to his new task—a

modesty equalled only by his genius.

On his arrival at Montauban, where the double functions of professor

and dean had been confided to him, he imparted firmness to the

professorship of theology by the solidity of his doctrine, the extent

of his learning, and the authority of his character. All acknowledged

that he had a right to exact much from every one, since he exacted

more from himself.

Unhappily his strength was soon exhausted by the labours of his

office; yet although suffering and ill, he continued to consecrate

the remainder of his expiring life. Seeing that his end was near,

he proceeded to Montpellier, where the ashes of his first wife and

daughter reposed, and died there on the 16th of September, 1818.

“There is only one voice in the Protestant church of France as to the

irreparable loss it has sustained,” said the editor of the _Archives

of Christianity_, on the announcement of this sorrowful news.

M. Daniel Encontre engaged himself upon philosophical and religious

subjects in some sketches which obtained deserved success. His letter

to M. Combe-d’Ounous on Plato, and his dissertation upon the true

system of the world compared with the Mosaic relation, prove that he

made profound researches upon questions, which have in all ages most

deeply interested the human mind.

However, French Protestantism strove to found some new institutions.

The general meeting of the Bible Society of France was convoked on

the 6th of December, 1819. We quote the following observation from

the president’s speech, which has an historical value: “According to

our by-laws and the government authorization, the Bible Society of

Paris consists solely of Protestants. It appears, and we ought not to

complain of it, that the government has thus invited the Reformed to

make each other’s acquaintance to edify one another, and to become

more exemplary, by intercommunication.” Such, in effect, was, next to

the essential motive of religious faith, one of the principal objects

of the members of the Bible Society under the Restoration; namely,

that of offering to the Protestants scattered over the face of the

kingdom, without any common organization, a central rallying-point

around which they might assemble for reciprocal assistance, an

advantage of vital importance when considered with reference to the

intrigues and encroachments of the clerical party.

Other associations were successively established: _The Religious

Tract Society_, in 1822; and _The Society for the Encouragement

of Primary Instruction among the Protestants of France_, in 1829.

Each of these institutions contributed its share in fortifying and

extending the empire of Christian piety.

Among the men, who laboured to found these societies, displaying as

much intelligence as devotion, the Baron Auguste de Staël should be

named.

He was the grandson of Necker, the son of Madame de Staël and the

brother of the Duchess de Broglie. The Protestant churches welcomed

in him one of those pious laymen, so useful in former times, who

united political influence with a Christian spirit; and they were

glad, allowing for the difference of time and circumstances, to

salute him as the future Duplessis-Mornay, or the Wilberforce of the

French Reformation.

Born at Coppet, in the canton of Vaud, in 1790, he received his

first religious lessons from the venerable pastor Cellerier. His

biographer says: “We do not doubt that M. de Staël owed a great part

of his just ideas on religion, and of the excellent sentiments he so

early displayed, to his connection and intimacy with this tried and

faithful minister; and we can confidently affirm that the scholar

ever entertained the liveliest and most tender remembrance of his

teacher.”[145]

The part he took in the establishment of the Bible Society helped to

develop his pious tendencies. Having accepted the task of drawing up

the Reports of the Committee, and of going from house to house to

exhort the faithful to make sacrifices for the dissemination of the

Scriptures, he learned better to appreciate the holy books himself.

During a visit to England in the spring of 1822, he became

acquainted with Wilberforce and other eminent Christians, whose words

and examples strengthened his sentiments of piety. The _Letters upon

England_, which he published in 1825, give but an imperfect idea

of the observations he collected upon this subject; for the author

confined himself to a treatise upon the religion and the Christian

communions of Great Britain in a volume which he was not able to

complete.

M. de Staël applied his zeal and efforts to several labours that

might be called _mixed_, because, although evangelical faith lay at

the base, their object was temporal improvement. We may mention among

them the foundation of Savings-banks, popular elementary instruction,

and the abolition of the slave-trade.

No one has forgotten the shudder of indignation which he excited at

a general meeting of the _Society of Christian Morality_, when he

exhibited the instruments of torture used in that abominable traffic.

He did more. “From hall to hall, from office to office, from palace

to palace,” says one of his biographers, “we saw him display these

hideous proofs of the most atrocious cruelty and lust of gain. He

brought before the notice of the princes and princesses of the

royal family, these machines invented by the spirit of evil, and he

explained to them their bloody use. He showed them to the peers of

the realm in their places in the legislative assembly, and to all

the friends of humanity in the public meetings of the benevolent

societies.... We may, without hesitation, assert, that it is to his

generous efforts we owe the cessation of the evil, and the change

manifested in the system of government and in the legislature on this

subject.”

The sympathies of M. de Staël were extended to all classes of the

oppressed, and he defended the victims of an intolerant law in

the Canton of Vaud. His writings, his letters, his solicitations,

moved every right-thinking conscience, and if he did not succeed in

procuring the repeal of this mischievous law, he succeeded in having

it more mildly applied.

His character offered a rare mixture of earnestness and caution, of

zeal and moderation. So great was his integrity, that it frequently

prevented him from speaking to the extent of his religious

convictions, from the fear of overstepping them. No one understood

better than himself how difficult it is, in the midst of social

affairs and relations, to make one’s life conform unerringly to the

precepts of the Gospel. “This want of harmony between his life and

his religion,” says the editor of his works, “was an insupportable

load, under which he languished, and his very physiognomy bore the

impress of this mental anguish. But by degrees his mind was calmed by

the Christian faith, at once so consoling and so pure, which, without

detracting from the beauty of the moral type which should be the

object of our endeavours, teaches us to turn our eyes from our own

misery to fix them upon that one divine, holy, and just Being, who

has accomplished everything for us.”

The Baron de Staël died at the Château de Coppet, on the 17th of

November, 1827, when only thirty-seven years of age.

The attention and the labours of the pious were also directed,

during the Restoration, towards the scattered Protestants, who were

threatened with the loss of their religious belief and habits, by

the distance of their dwellings from regular pastoral action. The

greatest of these new Evangelists was undoubtedly Félix Neff, who

was born at Geneva, in 1798. Although a stranger to the Reformed

churches of our country by his birthplace, he belongs to them by his

missionary career; for it is in Dauphiny, more than elsewhere, that

he spread the seeds of the Gospel, and he has been justly called the

Oberlin of the Upper Alps.

Neff was not covetous of glory, and it is probable that the idea of

a distinguished name never presented itself to his mind, when he

went to expound the Bible in the huts of the poor mountaineers. Yet

no name of the French Reformation in our day has been so famous as

his: numerous original writings and a host of translations have been

published concerning his life. In the heart of Germany, in the most

distant valleys of Scotland, on the borders of the Orinoco and the

Ohio, the name of Félix Neff is pronounced, and thousands of voices

will re-echo, “He was a mighty servant of the Lord.”

In his youth he was fond of reading Plutarch and Rousseau; he studied

mathematics and the natural sciences, and distinguished himself by

the manliness of his character, as much as by the powers of his mind.

Enrolled at seventeen years of age in the artillery of Geneva, his

approach to the principles of Christianity was slow; but when he had

once embraced them, he never quitted them. He immediately quitted the

military service, and travelled through several of the Swiss cantons,

preaching the Gospel from place to place. Thence he entered the

department of Isère, and in 1823 went to the Upper Alps.

There, in the deep gorges, or upon peaks covered with eternal snow,

dwells a population which, it is said, dates back by its symbols and

its religious creed, to the primitive Christians of the Gauls. They

form a link, not only with the disciples of Pierre Valdo, but with

the apostolate of Irenæus, the second bishop of Lyons.

These Christians of Dauphiny, exposed to cruel persecutions, and

continually straitened as the authority of Rome gradually more

closely encircled them, had taken refuge from rock to rock, from

mountain height to height, as far as the extreme limit where man can

exist in the rarefied air. They had carried with them their Bible,

their confessions of faith, and that firm piety, which welcomes

the most terrible tortures in preference to apostasy. When the

Reformation appeared, they saluted it as a sister of their ancient

communion, and joined the churches of Dauphiny and Provence.

Neff discovered in the valleys of Fressinières and Queyras, at

Triève, Lacombe, Dormillouse, villages hung upon the precipitous

slopes of the Alps, the remnants of this faithful race. Without

schools, without fixed pastors or regular religious service, they

were left to live upon their pious recollections rather than upon

a personal and active faith. Neff, by God’s help, restored this

to them; and, a missionary at the same time of civilization and

Christianity, he became their schoolmaster, and their instructor in

agriculture, engineering, and surveying; the first in the field to

labour, the last to quit the offices of prayer, he devoted himself

wholly to this people whom he served.

Three years and a half passed in these pursuits of fraternal love.

Félix Neff sheltered his head now under the roof of one cabin,

now under another, never sleeping three nights following in the

same resting-place. His parish was fifteen leagues in length,

and comprised twelve annexed districts. He visited them in winter

and summer alike, wading through the snow knee-deep, taking long

circuitous routes to pass the glaciers, eating the black bread of

the inhabitants, preaching in the barns, and opening schools in

the stables. Such devotion was not permitted to be fruitless. The

mountaineers of the Alps awoke at the voice of the apostle. “The

rocks, nay, the very glaciers,” he wrote, “all seemed animated, and

presented a smiling aspect; the savage country became agreeable and

dear to me from the moment its inhabitants were my brethren.”

But his health, however robust, gave way beneath the burthen, and

in this sublime contest between charity and physical suffering, his

frame broke down. Félix Neff was compelled to quit the Alps to behold

them no more; he died in the month of April, 1829, in his native town.

He has left but few writings—one or two fragments of sermons, some

pious meditations, and letters, which have been collected and

printed. He was rather a man of action than of study, and he might

have addressed to the writers on religion the saying of a great

citizen of antiquity to a philosopher: “That which you speak, I do.”

However rich Protestant literature may have been under the

Restoration, if judged by the number of its works, it is poor in

original books of any value. Translations and reprints were numerous.

English authors figure principally in the first category: Bogue,

Chalmers, Paley, Thomas Scott, Erskine, Milner, Miss Kennedy, and

others. In the second we meet with the works of Nardin, Saurin,

Court, Duplessis-Mornay, Dumoulin, Claude, and Drelincourt. The

_Mémoire_ of M. Alexandre Vinet in favour of religious liberty,

the _Vues sur le Protestantisme en France_ of M. Samuel Vincent,

and the _Musée des Protestants célèbres_, an unfinished work, are

distinguished by different kinds of merit from the mass of the

forgotten books of that period.

VII.

The Protestants took no active part, as Protestants, in the

Revolution of 1830; but they generally hailed its occurrence with

joy, because it brought them new pledges of security for the free

exercise of their worship. We have witnessed how their vexations,

annoyances, and exclusions were multiplied towards the end of the

reign of Charles X.; and if their political rights, consecrated by

the Charter, had fallen beneath the ordinances of July, to what

perilous attacks might not religious liberty, which rested upon the

same foundation, have been exposed? Many persons believed [that

it would have been so exposed]; and without crediting the reports

circulated at the time among the popular masses concerning projects

of persecution against the Protestants, it is probable that their

position would have been greatly aggravated.

This explains the satisfaction which they exhibited at the news of

the three days’ victory. Yet this contentment was calm, reserved, and

without the least thought of reprisals, and perfect harmony between

the two Churches was nowhere disturbed, except at Nismes, where it

seems as if the religious communions must always experience the

consequences of political events.

The Protestants were not the aggressors. Far from this; for in the

very first days of the month of August, an appeal to union was

published, having the full adhesion of all the respectable portion

of the community, without distinction of creed, and the pastors

went from family to family, everywhere recommending forgetfulness

of the crimes of 1815. Their voice was listened to. A multitude

of Protestant workmen, accompanied by a great number of (Roman)

Catholics, entered the public square, pronouncing words of

reconciliation, and formed a procession that marched round the city,

uttering cries of _Vive l’union!_ _Vive la paix!_ (Long live union!

Long live peace!)

But some rioters of the lowest class of the people, led partly by

fanaticism, and partly, perhaps, by the dread of the account that

justice might require of them for their past excesses, returned to

Nismes, on the 15th of August, with suspicious-looking strangers,

after having sought a refuge at Beaucaire, and their presence was

the occasion of unfortunate collisions. Happily several companies of

courageous countrymen came down from Vaunage, and intimidated this

seditious band. On the side of the (Roman) Catholics two were killed

and six wounded, and on the side of the Protestants six were killed

and twenty-eight wounded. The last had therefore furnished three or

four times more victims than they had made; the French Reformation

had been accustomed to suffer in this way for three hundred years

past.

In revising the Charter, the Chamber of Deputies abrogated the 6th

article, upon the religion of the state, and re-adopted the terms

of the _Concordat_ upon the religion of the majority of the French.

In doing this, there was much less desire to give satisfaction to

Protestantism than to the opinion excited against the usurpation

of the clerical power. M. Dupin explained this very clearly in his

report. “The expressions of the 6th article,” he said, “have awakened

impudent pretensions to an exclusive domination, as much opposed

to religion as to the freedom of conscience and the peace of the

kingdom. A threefold interest demands the erasure of terms which,

without adding anything to what religion will always possess of the

holy and venerable in our eyes, had become the source of many errors,

and, finally, caused the disgrace of the reigning family, and brought

the state to the brink of ruin.”

Two months afterwards, M. Dupin, then procurator-general at the Court

of Cassation, who has since maintained different opinions, demanded

true conditions of religious liberty. The question was still the

same; namely, whether it required the permission of the authorities

or a simple preliminary declaration, before opening a new place of

worship and forming regular assemblies of Protestants in communes,

where none had ever before existed. It was the important question of

a preventative or a repressive _régime_, of censorship or of liberty,

of the arbitrary intervention of power in religious matters, or of

the independence of believers.

M. Dupin also said, respecting the affair of the Protestants of

Levergies (and his words are still worthy of quotation), “He who

wills the end, wills the means. What avails a proclaimed liberty,

if the means of its enjoyment be denied? What! The free exercise of

worship is permitted, and at the same time there is a prohibition to

exercise it in every place! The exercise is to be interdicted in the

streets and public squares: that would shock other creeds. And when

its exercise is asked for in any special edifice, it is forbidden!

Such liberty is a mockery! What is the obligation thus imposed of

obtaining permission to celebrate one’s worship, but tantamount to

the preliminary censorship applied to the freedom of the press?...

In the actual condition of our constitutional legislation, I can

conceive that the administrative authority has a right to keep a

watch upon the exercise of worship, as upon every other kind of

assembly; a right to inquire into and punish offences arising out of

this exercise, and by this very fact the utility of a preliminary

declaration to prepare the authorities. But I can admit neither the

peremptory right of refusal, nor the silence equivalent to this

refusal, as a lawful means of preventing citizens from exercising

their religious worship with full liberty. This liberty is not

subject to preliminary authorization; it is not subordinated to

optional permission any more for those, who are not Catholics, than

for those who are so.” (October, 1830.)

The external condition of the French Reformation seemed therefore

more favourable than it had ever been, and we may read in the

Protestant journals of the day how full of hope they were. There

were to be no longer any direct or indirect inequality between the

two communions, or obstacles of any kind to the manifestation of the

Reformed faith! There was thenceforth to be an end to the necessity

of waiting about the antechamber of priest-led prefects to solicit

their authorization in ecclesiastical matters, or about the office

of a minister, governed by political calculations! The ill-will of

a mayor or a royal procurator was not to be any longer sufficient

to dissolve religious meetings, and the tribunals would not punish

the prayers of a few peaceable men out-numbering the perilous figure

of twenty persons, as if they were crimes! We shall soon see how

completely their expectations were deceived.

Many Protestants thought that the occasion was propitious for

demanding the alteration of the law of the 18th Germinal. It appeared

to them that a government sprung from the triumph of liberal ideas

could not, without self-contradiction, maintain a law which had been

inspired by an excessive reaction against all liberty. Complaints and

petitions to this effect were presented to the ministers of Louis

Philippe; but they were thrown aside. If the popular origin of the

government were a means, it was also an obstacle. The new power,

conscious of its weakness and want of solidity, would not increase

the difficulties of its position by meddling with the ecclesiastical

questions, and it adopted as a rule of conduct in these matters, to

make no change unless under absolute necessity.

Perhaps it would have been [a matter] of more easy settlement, had

the question been one of mere Protestantism. To grant better laws to

a small minority, ought to have given little umbrage. But behind the

Protestant community were the (Roman) Catholics, with a discontented

clergy, secretly hostile, and hating the organic articles even more

than the consistories. If anything were granted to the former,

nothing could be refused to the latter; and expediency forbade the

aggravation of the troubles of the State by those of the Church.

The government, therefore, refused to make the least change in the

law. Whereupon another question presented itself. Leaving the organic

articles intact, was it not possible to have deduced more liberal

applications from them, and to have given a less dependent position

to Protestantism? The intervention of the legislative bodies was

not necessary in this case; the discussion might be carried on with

closed doors; the consistories and the minister of public worship

might arrange everything, and a simple royal ordinance would suffice.

Several consistories insisted upon this point; pastoral conferences

drew up programmes for the administration of the Reformed churches;

the government itself nominated a commission to prepare the draft

of the ordinance, and there was finally a prospect of something

favourable to the Reformed.

Expectation was again deceived. The new regulation drawn up by this

commission, instead of extending liberty, seemed to restrict it to

still narrower limits than before; and the minister of public worship

encountered the most energetic opposition from the consistories, when

he consulted them upon it. The government ceased to do any more, and

the _régime_ of 1802 remained in its entirety.

In other respects, according to the genius of the middle classes,

who directed public affairs at this time, the material, or pecuniary

side of the situation of the Reformed churches, not only suffered no

attack, but was sensibly ameliorated. The majority of the pastors

received augmented allowances, new places were created, and funds

for building places of worship and opening schools were granted

with liberality. All this is mentioned with gratitude. Nothing was

refused that money can accomplish for the development of a religious

communion.

It must also be said in honour of Louis Philippe’s government, that

it never sought to mix itself up with the internal questions of

the churches, when its intervention was not sought by the churches

themselves. If it decreed the removal of some pastors, and did

other acts which ought not to depend upon the decision of the civil

power, it was unwillingly, and after long delays [that it did so].

Protestantism might have been much more free under this reign, if it

had seriously striven to become so.

But beyond the official region, barriers and fetters of all kinds

soon reappeared, as in the reign of Charles X.; sometimes, indeed,

there seemed to be a stronger desire to offer obstruction, and

scarcely was one cause of litigation on account of religion settled,

before another sprung up.

After the Revolution, the most zealous of the Protestants judged that

the moment had arrived for multiplying their labours of proselytism.

Considered from the point of view of liberty and the equality of

creeds, this was their right; and considered from that of their

personal convictions, it was their duty. When proselytism employs

such means only as are peaceful and authorized by universal morality,

no human power can legitimately interdict it.

Circumstances appeared favourable. Public opinion was deeply

hostile to the clerical party; it accused them of having deceived

the conscience of an aged king to make him violate his oath, and

overthrow the liberties of the nation. The external signs of (Roman)

Catholicism fell in every direction before the popular cry; the

churches were deserted, and the priests felt so well the discredit

in which they stood, that for several years they kept themselves

aloof, never showing themselves except when absolutely obliged, never

raising a dispute, uttering a word, or asking anything but to be

forgotten at the foot of their altars.

This was not all. Philosophical systems and social theories were

boldly propounded to the country under the sacred name of religion,

and were preached with great applause. Saint Simonism, among others,

had its journals, its public meetings, its worship, its hierarchy,

its missionaries, its committees of propagandism: we mention the

fact without contesting the right: the Saint Simonians were entitled

to liberty, to as much liberty as the Reformed and the (Roman)

Catholics, of gaining proselytes by the channel of persuasion.

It may be easily imagined that the fervent members of the Protestant

faith would not consent to be shut up in their places of worship,

while antichristian and vicious doctrines, in their eyes, were openly

propagated. Conscience imposed upon them the imperious and holy

obligation of addressing themselves immediately both to the deserters

from the (Roman) Catholic church—an immense multitude, wandering

hither and thither without spiritual guides—and to the disciples

of the schools, who had, as it appeared to them, but the empty

appearance of a religion. It was not so much an idea of aggression

against (Roman) Catholicism as a testimony of sympathy for the souls

which had no longer religious belief of any kind.

They had also another object in view, of secondary consequence to the

religious conscience, but still important,—this was to strengthen

order, threatened by the political revolutions. These Protestants

believed that a vague spiritualism could not imbue a free people with

those morals which must sustain the noble burthen of the laws, and

that this required a strong and positive faith, the faith, which they

themselves possessed.

Hence the origin, for a part of French Protestantism, of a whole

series of publications, associations, and Christian institutions, in

the general sense of this word. A journal, rearing alone the standard

of the Gospel, the _Sower_, appeared in the month of September,

1831. Chapels, unsalaried by the State, were opened about the same

time at Paris and elsewhere. In 1833 an _evangelical society_ was

established, with the intention of announcing to all indifferently,

what they held to be the essential truths of Christianity. We might

mention some other institutions conceived in the same spirit.

These labours were not trammelled in the beginning. But the (Roman)

Catholic clergy having gradually recovered their strength, the

government thought it expedient to make approaches to them, and

endeavoured to conciliate them by favours of a nature alien to the

establishment of 1830. It is not our duty to examine whether the

government of Louis Philippe did not lose more than it gained by this

policy. What it is important for us to say is, that it impeded the

work of proselytism according to the measure of its relations with

the sacerdotal body.

Considering certain acts and prosecutions, it might even have been

supposed, that there was something passing analogous to what had

been seen in former times. All the historians have remarked that

Henry IV., on his advent to the throne, and Louis XIV., when he had

disputed with the Holy See, redoubled their severity against the

Protestants, because they felt it incumbent upon them to wipe away

the suspicion of heresy. The same cause, in its due proportion, and

allowing for the great difference of the periods, produced similar

effects under the reign of Louis Philippe. This prince had to

dissipate the distrust of the priests, to win their sympathies; and

in one sense, he dreaded more than ever Charles X. had done, giving

Protestants a free field, because the clergy would have been more

prompt in accusing him of connivance with them. The marriage of the

heir to the crown with a Protestant prince (a descendant, it is said,

of Admiral Coligny), instead of improving matters, made them worse.

Things were now carried farther than instituting suits against those,

who opened new places of worship, than invoking the restrictive

articles of the penal code against them, as under the Restoration,

and applying the dispositions of the law of 1834 respecting

associations, although the minister of justice and public worship had

solemnly promised the Chambers not to turn them against religious

societies; but even the right of controversy, that was exercised

under the _régime_ of the Edict of Nantes, was called in question,

and a certain prefectorial order actually assumed to fix—as in the

time of Charles IX. and Catherine de Medicis—the number of persons

authorized to participate in the Protestant religion. Even more,

legally constituted Protestantism had to maintain contests to

preserve the right of visiting its own members in the hospitals,

prisons, and other public establishments; and the authorities

proceeded sometimes so far as to impose arbitrary bounds to preaching

among the scattered Protestants.

These iniquitous proceedings, which it would be just to attribute

more particularly to subordinate and ignorant functionaries, provoked

energetic remonstrances. A society was formed, under the name of the

general interests of French Protestantism, to protect the freedom

and equality of creeds. All the pastors of Paris, without exception,

complained of the conduct of the civil power. The national tribunal

resounded with these grievances. Some eminent men of the Protestant

communion, MM. Pelet de la Lozère, François Delessert, and Agénor de

Gasparin, were the medium of communication; the Opposition supported

them, and the minister promised that the Reformed should be more

justly treated.

He kept his word in some respects. Legal Protestantism might

accomplish its mission among its people, without as well as within;

but evangelical proselytism met with never-ceasing obstacles until

the end of the royalty of 1830. It is sad to say, that not a single

government in France, whatever may have been its origin, has yet

known how to sanction the practical exercise of religious liberty

in its full extent. We may be unbelievers, but we are not yet free

to proclaim our faith, or to celebrate our worship according to our

consciences.

Notwithstanding the resistance of the government, the Reformed

doctrine gained ground in many places. A certain number of (Roman)

Catholics, and even some priests, embraced Protestantism. New

churches were added to the old ones, some attaching themselves to the

established organization, others preserving an independent position.

Yet the importance of these successes must not be exaggerated. In our

times the vital forces of the people seem to be absorbed by political

pre-occupations and material interests, and it must be confessed that

the great majority of Frenchmen have too little faith to change their

religion.

The attempt at proselytism on either side would, as a natural

consequence, increase the ardour of controversy. This argumentative

warfare was in effect carried on without cessation; and we might

cite a long list of writings upon matters disputed between the two

communions, from 1830 to 1848. Some of these publications are dressed

in a popular form that has gained them numerous readers.

The same epoch affords examples, from time to time, of an odious

intolerance; but they were only private and isolated acts. These

were the abduction of young girls, refusal of burial in the

communal cemetery, profanation of tombs, sequestration of the sick,

accusations against several agents of the evangelical societies. The

hand of the priests and the nuns was often suspected, and in certain

cases was detected with incontrovertible evidence. The responsibility

of these acts must fall only upon some fanatical and ignorant

individuals. The respectable people of the (Roman) Catholic communion

were indignant at them, and the judiciary or administrative authority

protected the rights of the minority, although it deserves the

reproach of pursuing and punishing the true criminals too leniently.

The last years of the reign of Louis Philippe were disturbed by an

affair which deeply moved the Protestants of France, although it

was connected in a very indirect manner with their relations to the

State. The armed invasion of the island of Tahiti revealed to the

world the extreme complaisance of the government for the clerical

party, and at the same time the danger of subordinating the temporal

power to the maxims of the Romish church. This attack upon the rights

of nations narrowly escaped rupturing the alliance with England,

compromised the name of France before all civilized nations, sensibly

augmented the strength of the opposition, and threw the ministry

into difficulties of embarrassment, from which it was never able to

recover itself A lesson so severe and so grave ought not to be lost!

VIII.

The internal situation of the Protestants under the royalty of July,

will one day furnish the historian with abundant subjects of research

and reflection.

Two questions in which, if we consider them attentively, all the

others concentred, were particularly debated—the question of the

confessions of faith, and that of the separation of Church and State.

Ought the churches of the Reformation to have a written and

obligatory confession upon the fundamental articles of faith? Or

ought they to propound the Bible alone as the rule of faith and

teaching? Historically considered, the question would soon be

decided, since French Protestantism has existed under the _régime_ of

a dogmatic formulary from the year 1559 until 1802. But this fact,

however important, could resolve nothing; for the Reformation does

not declare itself immutable, and has constantly retained the right

of altering its mode of organization, upon the sole condition of

respecting the sovereign authority of the Scriptures.

The vehement and often resumed polemical controversy that resulted

from this discussion had already begun before 1830; it was renewed

under Louis Philippe, and has not yet terminated. Partisans and

adversaries of the confessions of faith alike invoke the testimony

of the Bible; but the former are above all things anxious for

the interest of unity of doctrine, the latter for the right of

examination and freedom. The first do not understand how there can

be a church in the true acceptation of the term, when the pulpit is

open to contradictory teachings; the second are equally ignorant how

Protestantism can be subjected to a rule that no longer allows every

one to form his belief for himself, Bible in hand.

Perhaps, if we were to probe this debate somewhat more deeply, we

should find that these differences of opinion depend still more

upon the manner of understanding the Gospel than of confessing it.

The defenders of written creeds see essential points where their

adversaries distinguish only simple shades, and that which is the

whole of Christianity for the one, is for the others nothing more

than a particular and fallible interpretation.

Two men, who have wielded a legitimate influence, MM. Stapfer and

Samuel Vincent, maintained opposite theses in this controversy.

M. Philippe Albert Stapfer, a native of Berne, had become a Frenchman

by long residence in the country, and by his constant sympathies for

the Protestants of France. He brought them what they had long wanted

since the seventeenth century,—theological learning, drawn from the

best sources of Christian antiquity and the Reformation.

A part of his career was employed in important political and

diplomatic affairs. Appointed minister of public instruction and

worship in his own country, at the period when the Directory had

erected Switzerland into a Unitarian republic, M. Stapfer displayed

great zeal for the intellectual development of the people, and a

generous courage against the pretensions of the foreigner. Afterwards

called to fill the post of ambassador to Buonaparte, he defended

as long as possible, and with noble firmness, the independence of

the Swiss cantons against the growing exactions of the conqueror of

Marengo.

These laborious negotiations did not prevent him from devoting long

hours to study. He followed with attentive eye the learned theology

and the philosophy of Germany in all their scientific evolutions, and

he prescribed it to himself as a duty even in his waning years, to

keep pace with modern ideas.

Eminent by his learning, M. Stapfer was not less distinguished for

his faith. These two great forces of human existence afforded mutual

assistance to this elevated person. Unfortunately he has written

but little; his weak health did not permit him to remain long at

the desk. Some sketches and a few discourses constitute the greater

part of his works. They have been collected in two volumes, with a

biographical notice by M. Vinet, in the form of an apology, which has

been given to the world with the affection of respect, and with an

unusual discernment.

M. Stapfer devoted himself most earnestly to the labours of the

principal associations of Protestantism. He had great moral influence

in these societies. His clear mind, elevated views, benevolent

character, firmness on important occasions, nobility of sentiment and

intention, all endued his words with an authority to which it was

honourable to submit. This faithful servant of the Gospel died on the

27th of March, 1840.

M. Samuel Vincent was born at Nismes in 1787; he was the son and

grandson of pastors of the desert, and had derived from his paternal

traditions, a profound attachment to the Reformed communion, cemented

with the blood of martyrs, and which has withstood so many storms.

One may differ from the ideas, which this learned pastor entertained

upon some articles of dogma and discipline; but no one can dispute

his firm and invariable desire to bring the scattered members of the

great body of the French Reformation together, and to instil into it,

with the divine blessing, new seeds of life. M. Vincent faithfully

reproduced the expression, the tendencies, and the character of the

Protestants of the south, who have shown so much steadfastness and

heroism in the days of persecution, and who had already, towards

the end of the sixteenth century, distinguished themselves from the

Protestants of the north.

After completing his studies at Geneva, he was appointed to the

ministry of the Reformed church at Nismes, like his father and

grandfather. He won distinction by the variety of his acquirements,

the urbanity of his private life, and his zeal in exciting a useful

activity around him. He was a man of meditation and impulse, ever

ready most freely to dispense the valuable thoughts which he had

gathered, and willingly surrendered to others the honour of the

initiative, which he had given them.

From 1820 to 1824 he published, in the form of a periodical

collection, _Mélanges de Religion, de Morale, et de Critique_,

with the particular object of initiating the French pastors in the

movement of German theology during the last eighty years. The task

was ungrateful. It was in a manner necessary to create his auditory

before he could instruct them, and M. Vincent had occasion to

convince himself that it is sometimes more difficult to inspire the

taste for science, than to communicate science itself.

When M. de Lamennais attacked Protestantism with all the vehemence of

his genius, the pastor of Nismes answered him by his _Observations

sur la Voie d’Autorité appliquée à la Religion_. Less skilful as a

writer than his illustrious adversary, he maintained a better cause

and defended it by more solid arguments. It is to be regretted that

M. de Lamennais should have assumed a disdainful superiority in

his reply, forgetting that in such a debate, victory is not won by

haughtiness of language, but by soundness of reasoning.

We have already had occasion to cite the _Views upon Protestantism in

France_, a work in which M. Vincent has embodied his reflections upon

the principal questions of doctrine and ecclesiastical organization.

This book bears evidence of a strong and independent mind, and yet

the author does not appear to have displayed all the powers which he

possesses; it is the first effort of a great intellect and a generous

heart.

M. Vincent died on the 10th of July, 1837; (Roman) Catholics

and Protestants joined in following to his last resting-place

[the remains of] a man, who had reflected honour at once upon

Protestantism and his country.

The second question, agitated among the Protestants after 1830,

concerned, as we have said, the separation of Church and State. The

Revolution of 1789 made a distinction between the temporal and the

spiritual [powers]. It confined the priest to his proper domain, the

magistrate to his, and it separated the citizen from the believer.

But is it right to go to this extent? Ought the State to regard the

Church or the churches, as no more than private societies, free

institutions, which exist under the common right of protection by

conforming to the general laws, and without receiving any salary for

their ministers? Or ought the State to treat with these institutions,

to confer upon them an official character by its alliance, and to

place them, with reference to other associations, in a privileged

position? The question is one of vast importance; it involves the

entire notions of Church and State, and the manner of resolving it

affects the gravest problems of religion and politics. It is not

difficult to understand that men of equal enlightenment, sincerity,

and piety, may adopt entirely different opinions in this controversy.

It has engaged (Roman) Catholicism as well as Protestantism. MM. de

Lamennais and de Lamartine have both pronounced for the complete

separation of the two powers. The same thesis has been maintained in

the Protestant communion by a thinker of the highest order, whose

name deserves a place among the greatest—M. Vinet, who, although not

belonging to the French Reformation either by birth, or by way of

naturalization or domicile, has written for it, and influenced it,

and therefore a few lines concerning him will not be out of place.

M. Alexandre Vinet was born in a village of the canton of Vaud. He

was educated at Lausanne, and while still young filled the chair of

literature in the University of Basle. This was a happy position for

a mind like his; for, placed upon the frontier of the two principal

civilizations of the continent, he could take from either what

was most excellent, stamping it at the same time with the seal of

that manly independence which is instinctively acquired in the most

ancient republic of Europe. He received learning from Germany,

precision of judgment and language from France, the sentiment of

liberty from his own country, the faith that purifies and corrects

everything from the Gospel; and out of these different elements his

eminently original genius composed an harmonious whole, which it is

more easy to name than to describe.

As a critic, few writers of the present day have equalled, and none

have surpassed him, at least in the essential conditions of the art.

He loved to discover and vindicate the beauties of literary works

rather than to point out their defects, and one might occasionally

wonder at the praises, with which he sometimes dignified mediocre

writings, were it not that he naturally delighted in the good and the

beautiful, and that wherever he encountered the palest image of these

[features], he made it lustrous by the contact of his own intellect.

M. Vinet lauded in others, without knowing it, the merits that he had

imparted to them.

His style has been appreciated in these terms by M. Sainte Beuve,

one of the most competent judges that could be named on such a

subject: “He possesses” [says M. Sainte Beuve] “an originality which

reproduces and condenses the qualities of French Switzerland in the

most happy manner, and at the same time his language is generally

excellent, of Attic turn, and redolent with choicest flowers.... If I

might venture to express my actual thought, I should say that, after

M. Daunou for the ancient school, after M. Villemain for the modern,

he is, in my judgment, of all French writers, the one who has best

analyzed the models, sifted and deciphered the language, fathomed

its limits and its centre, and noted its various and veritable

acceptations.”[146]

As a preacher, he broke through the old forms of the sermon, and

identified himself with the auditor of the nineteenth century,

without quitting by one step the territory of Christianity, or

rather by shielding so much the more efficaciously the principle

of unity in the Gospel that he made just concessions to that of

diversity. “There was in his oratory,” says an author, “something

characteristically innate and powerful.... At first he sought to

restrain himself, but the tone soon rose; his speech became more

rapid; his sonorous voice elicited in every accent the emotion of

which it was full, and the care he took to keep himself out of

consideration, to disappear behind the truths he announced, only

served to render talents so pure, so true, and so original, more

prominent.”[147] As a Christian, he belonged to the family of Pascal

by the penetration and the profundity of his thought, and to the

family of Fénélon by the mild and simple candour of his faith. One

thing surpassed even his piety and genius—humility. How could a man

be so completely ignorant of the qualities of his own heart, who

discerned those of others so well? It is that he judged others by his

heart, and himself with his conscience. He had all the complaisance

of charity for them, and all the severity of the ideal for himself.

M. Alexandre Vinet rendered his soul to God on the 4th of May, 1847.

He left many disciples, but he has not up to the present time had a

successor.

The Protestant press was enriched with several works of real merit

during the reign of Louis Philippe. The history of the Reformation

has been treated with remarkable talent. The pulpit reckoned many

excellent models. Periodical literature was not without worth; and

if France has given little heed to these labours, it is perhaps less

the fault of the Protestant preachers and writers than of hereditary

prejudices, that still weigh upon Protestantism itself in France.

Many benevolent institutions were established during this period, and

supported by voluntary contributions. Orphans, the aged, the sick,

children destitute of instruction, those whom justice has condemned,

and other unfortunates besides, became the object of an active

and liberal solicitude, and afforded their testimony in behalf of

that Protestantism, which is depreciated only by those, who do not

understand it.

The religious societies, properly speaking, continued their labours,

and received considerable additions to their funds. The Bible,

disseminated by the hand of _colporteurs_, as in the beginning of

the French Reformation, spread light and life in every direction.

The scattered Protestants were appealed to, gathered together, and

instructed. The Evangelical Society increased every year the number

of its agents. The Missionary Society sent zealous servants of the

Gospel to the south of Africa, who carried to the wild tribes who

peopled it, the most useful arts of civilized nations, together with

the promises of the Christian faith.

Among those, who exhibited the greatest zeal and devotion for the

conversion of the heathen, the name of Admiral Ver-Huell must not be

forgotten.

A native of Holland, he had become a Frenchman by his great military

services, and by the letters of naturalization which rewarded them.

At the camp of Boulogne he was intrusted with the organization of

the Batavian fleet, and gave striking proofs of cool intrepidity,

intelligence, and bravery, in several encounters. He led a

_corps-d’armée_ through the English fleet, that poured upon his

squadron the projectiles of nine hundred guns. This heroic act gave

entire confidence to the hundred and sixty thousand men collected

upon the borders of the ocean.

Napoleon entertained the highest esteem for Admiral Ver-Huell, and

it was to his keeping that he desired to intrust his person and his

fortunes after the disaster of Waterloo, so that he might escape to

America. This was refused to the Admiral for some frivolous reason.

“If this charge had been confided to Ver-Huell, as I had been

promised,” said the prisoner of St. Helena, “I believe we should have

succeeded.”

Admiral Ver-Huell was made a minister of state, an ambassador, and

a peer of France; but we will pass over his political career: his

religious life alone belongs to this work. The celebrated sailor

was one of the most active members of all the religious societies,

which he aided with his purse, his example, and the authority of his

name. He particularly took a paternal interest in the children of the

Missionary House, and watched them with affectionate eye in their

distant and perilous apostolate.

He was president of the Missionary Society, and the anniversary

of the general meetings was always welcomed by him with pleasure.

“What pure and simple joy beamed in his countenance,” says a writer

well acquainted with him, “when the deputations from the auxiliary

societies, or some friend of missions, assured the committee of

their sympathy for the work, and congratulated him with Christian

thankfulness. How truly and deeply felt was the speech that he was

accustomed to deliver at the opening of the session. Eighteen times

in twenty-three years did he fill the chair at the general meeting,

and on every occasion he delivered an address, which bore the impress

of his pious heart and energetic soul....

“When a friend entered his house, his face, that we had never once

seen clouded, suddenly lighted up. His look brightened, his voice

assumed a peculiar accent of mildness; in every demonstration of

his friendship one felt at the same time the frank heartiness of

the sailor, the dignity of the general, the polish of the man of

the world, the simplicity and truth of the Christian.... Goodness

pervaded all his sentiments, his character, his whole life; it was

part and parcel of himself; it was himself; a goodness simple,

candid, affectionate, cordial; a goodness inexhaustible in its

source and effects; a goodness disinterested in its principle and

persevering in its fruits; a goodness that never suspected evil, and

would not believe it either in men or things.”[148]

Admiral Ver-Huell was snatched from his friends and the Church the

25th of October, 1845, at the age of sixty-nine.

Some further facts in the internal movement of the Reformed communion

might be mentioned, such as the establishment of separate flocks,

the Wesleyans, Baptists, and dissenters of several denominations.

But they were only local manifestations of no great extent, which,

although offering examples of living faith and pious devotion among

themselves, did not influence the general condition of French

Protestantism.

IX.

We have now reached the end of our task. The Revolution of 1848 has

as yet exercised no considerable action upon the Reformed communion,

taken as a whole. If during the past three years the Protestants of

France have held assemblies whereat new projects of ecclesiastical

organization have been framed, nothing has as yet been actually

accomplished.

The provisional government, pre-engaged with so many other matters,

did not touch religious affairs. It only passed a decree declaring

that all citizens detained in prison for acts relating to the free

exercise of their religion, should be immediately set at liberty,

and that all fines which they had been condemned to pay, should be

remitted. This was a homage rendered, as the preamble expressed, to

the most precious and the most sacred of all liberties.

The only question at the same time religious and political, which

was discussed after the Revolution by the press and in the popular

assemblies, respected the separation of Church and State. A placard

posted on the walls of Paris, on the 24th of February, demanded as

the wish of the people, absolute liberty of conscience, and complete

independence of the two powers. It was known that M. de Lamartine,

then at the summit of popularity, approved of this system, and M. de

Lamennais maintained it with the utmost energy in his new journal,

_Le Peuple Constituant_.

Those of the Protestants who were in favour of the principle of

independence, formed a _society for the application of Christianity

to social questions_, and published a placard declaring that—“It is

unjust to compel a citizen to contribute to the expense of a worship,

which he does not follow. That the support of religious creeds should

no longer be borne by the public exchequer, but that every one should

be left to provide for the form of worship he shall have freely

chosen.... Thus, religious creeds would be propagated by those who

accepted them, and there would be no more privileged religions. Thus,

the State would no longer have its attention engaged by questions

full of embarrassment or danger. Thus, the budget would be relieved

to the extent of more than forty millions of francs. Thus, in short,

the whole French people would be as free and equal in religious

matters, as they are [were] in political matters.”

Nothing was impossible in the midst of the universal confusion of

minds and institutions. The defenders of the communions officially

recognised were kept in a state of anxious expectation, ready to

submit to separation if it were pronounced by the Constituent

Assembly, but showing their preference for the maintenance of the

union of Church and State.

Some delegates of the Reformed churches assembled spontaneously at

Paris, in the month of May, 1848. They had been in a manner convoked

by the common necessities and apprehensions. There was no regularity

in the origin of their mandates; some had been appointed by universal

suffrage, others by the consistories, or even by the presidents of

the consistories. Nor was there any proportion in the representation:

certain churches, in the neighbourhood of Paris, reckoned five or

six delegates for a single consistorial circuit; while on the other

hand, some churches had only sent one deputy for three or four

consistories. There, lastly, was no uniformity in the powers of the

delegates: some were authorized to enter fully into a discussion of

ecclesiastical questions, and others were not. Such an assembly could

only prepare the way for a body more regularly chosen by the members

of legal Protestantism.

The meeting first debated the question of the relations between

Church and State, and the great majority were in favour of preserving

the alliance, reserving expressly the dignity and liberty of the

Church. An electoral regulation was then framed for the formation of

an assembly, which might consider the affairs of the communion, with

an established title.

This new assembly commenced its session on the 11th of September,

1848. The members were elected by suffrage of two degrees,

the body of the flocks having chosen the electors intrusted

with the appointment of the delegates. Each of the ninety-two

consistorial churches was invited to nominate an ecclesiastical or

a lay deputy. Only three consistories abstained, beside the two

theological facilities of Montauban and Strasbourg, which sent no

representatives. The number of members present at the assembly was

not more than from seventy to eighty. It was, for the rest, an

entirely non-official assembly. It received no authority from any

legal text; the government did not recognise it, and the churches

were quite free to accept its resolutions or to reject them.

Long and serious questions were agitated regarding the confessions

of faith. Finally, the assembly decided, almost unanimously, that in

accordance with the wish of the generality of the churches, it would

not touch upon dogmatical subjects, and that the question should be

deferred until a more opportune time. An address was drawn up, in

which the majority expressed its common belief, without resolving the

controverted points of doctrine in one sense or another.

Some of the members protested against this decision, and withdrew.

They have since formed, with the independent congregations already in

being, a new religious society, under the name of the _Union of the

Evangelical Churches of France_. Their particular synod was opened on

the 20th of August, 1849, and drew up a profession of faith, and an

ecclesiastical constitution for the flocks it represented.

Having avoided the questions of dogma, the general assembly

of September discussed a scheme of organization for a legal

establishment. Universal suffrage, under certain restrictions, lay

at the base of the plan; the individual church was reconstituted as

an essential element of the Presbyterian system; the institution

of the general consistories was preserved, but made subordinate

to the particular synods; finally, as the centre and crown of the

ecclesiastical edifice, there was to be a general synod, which should

meet at regular intervals.

The minister of public worship, to whom this project was

communicated, applied to the churches for their opinions upon it.

The consistories, while they were unanimous in asking for important

modifications in the law of the 18th Germinal, did not agree upon the

articles of the new plan of organization, and it is uncertain whether

it will become the object of a legislative measure.

While Protestantism endeavoured to modify its internal government and

its relations to the civil authority, the national assembly discussed

the constitution. It adopted the two following articles: “Every

one professes his religion freely, and receives from the State an

equal protection for the exercise of his creed. The ministers of

creeds actually recognised by the law, and of those which shall be

recognised in future, have a right to receive support from the State.”

It will be remarked that the (Roman) Catholic religion is no longer

named in the fundamental law. Not only has it ceased to be the State

religion, but it has not even preserved the distinction given to it

in the _Concordat_ of Napoleon, and the Charter of 1830, namely, that

of being the religion of the majority of the French people. There is

no privilege, then, for (Roman) Catholicism; but a full, perfect, and

absolute equality among all the recognised creeds, in such a manner

that the constitution would be violated if the government granted to

the Romish church any pre-eminence whatsoever. It has exhausted three

centuries of efforts and struggles to gain the inscription of this

great rule of justice upon the laws, and perhaps it has to be still

better learned and applied by the manners of the people. A nation

educated in (Roman) Catholicism practises with greater difficulty

than any other, the complete equality of religious communions.

It is to be further observed, that this equality exists only for the

creeds which are, or shall be recognised by the State. The advocates

of the system of separation have not been satisfied with it, and the

question of the suppression of the budget for the creeds continues to

be mooted by some organs of the religious and political press. It is

a problem for the future to resolve.

The conduct of the different governments that have presided

over the destinies of France since the Revolution of 1848, has

given rise to more than one dispute, whether on the part of the

independent societies and churches, or whether on the part of

official Protestantism. But we will not dwell upon facts that

date only from yesterday. The country is in a period of crisis

and transition; nothing is settled; and this fluctuating position

explains many things, without, however, justifying them. Let us hope

that the freedom and equality of creeds will eventually succeed in

establishing themselves in the minds of the nation, as they have in

the laws, and that they will become a sovereign maxim of conduct for

the governing and the governed.[149]

French Protestantism has written nearly nothing within the last three

years. It collects itself in the presence of the great political

events that are passing; it observes, it waits. New ideas are

commencing there as elsewhere. What will be the issue? God alone

knows; for us, it is sufficient to know that God reigns. He has given

to the Reformed churches of France days of faith and of triumph; He

has protected them during long generations, against the blows of the

persecutor; and His hand, that hath guarded the fathers, will not

forsake the children.

THE END.

PRINTED BY COX (BROTHERS) AND WYMAN, GREAT QUEEN STREET.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Bellarm. Op. vol. vi. p. 296.

[2] Hist. des Variations, book v. p. 1.

[3] Ephes. ii. 8.

[4] Bossuet, Hist. des Var. book ii. p. 13.

[5] Œcol. et Zw. Op. p. 9.

[6] Les Vrais Portraits, &c. translated from the Latin of Th. de

Bèze, p. 85.

[7] Fontaine, Hist. Cathol. de notre Temps, p. 53.

[8] Hist. des Martyrs, p. 93.

[9] Erasm. Epp. vol. ii. p. 1206.

[10] It should be observed that the name of _Protestant_ was not

generally given in France to the followers of the Reformation, until

the end of the seventeenth century, and that it would not be more

exact to call them so in the former half of our history, than to

designate by the name of Frenchmen the contemporaries of Clovis.

They were called in the beginning, _Lutherans_, _Sacramentarians_,

then _Calvinists_, _Huguenots_, _Religionaries_, or _Those of the

Religion_. They called themselves _Gospellers_, the _Faithful_, the

_Reformers_. The name of _Protestant_ was at that time applied only

to the disciples of the Lutheran Reformation in Germany.

[11] 1 Tim. iv. 1-3.

[12] See the narration of Lambert in Gerdes, Hist. Réform. vol. iv.

Doc. pp. 21-28.

[13] Les Vrais Portraits, &c.

[14] We can only sketch here the chief features. Those, who are

desirous of knowing what the _mystic school_ of the first periods

of the French Reformation was, should read the monograph of Gérard

Roussel, by Professor C. Schmidt, &c.

[15] Hist. des Egl. réf. p. 6.

[16] Recherches sur la France, book vii. p. 911.

[17] There are some remarkable pages of M. Guizot’s on this subject

in the _Musée des Protestants célèbres_, art. _Calvin_. The execution

of Michel Servet has furnished the subject of a never-ending

discussion. A skilful historian of our time, M. Mignet, has devoted

to it a long and learned dissertation. It would be wholly departing

from our plan, to enter into these details. We will confine ourselves

to the indication of the following points:—1. Servet was not an

ordinary heretic; he was a daring pantheist, and outraged the dogma

of all the great Christian communities, by saying that the God in

three persons was a Cerberus, a monster with three heads. 2. He had

been already condemned to death by the Catholic doctors at Vienne,

in Dauphiny. 3. The affair was tried, not by Calvin, but by the

magistrates of Geneva; and if it be objected, that his advice must

have influenced their decision, it must be remembered that the

counsels of the other reformed Swiss cantons approved the sentence

unanimously. 4. It was of infinite importance to the Reformation,

that it should separate its cause clearly from that of an unbeliever

like Servet. The (Roman) Catholic church, which this day accuses

Calvin of having participated in his condemnation, would have accused

him still more, in the sixteenth century, had he solicited for his

acquittal.

[18] Vie de Calvin, pp. 44, 128, and _passim_.

[19] Florim. de Rémond, Hist. de la Naissance, &c., de l’Hérésie de

ce Siècle, book vii. p. 931.

[20] Book vii. p. 874.

[21] Book vii. p. 910.

[22] Book vii. p. 864.

[23] John de Serres, Recueil de Choses mémorables, &c. p. 64.

[24] Page 189.

[25] Vol. i. pp. 108, 109.

[26] Abrégé Chron. vol. v. p. 14.

[27] It must be remembered here, and in other parts of this book,

that we are speaking of the Italians of the sixteenth century, nobles

and priests, who, eternally witnessing at Rome, Florence, Naples,

scenes of assassination, poisoning, and the utmost turpitude, had

sunk into the very lowest degree of depravity. It is they, history

attests it, who planned, advised, prepared, and finally executed in

France the most monstrous crimes of the epoch. But we are far from

seeking to load the Italian nation of to-day with this terrible

responsibility: a generous and intellectual nation, which has raised

itself by its very misfortunes, and which adversity renders doubly

entitled to our respect.

[28] Vol. iv. p. 204.

[29] Mémoires de Coligny, p. 18. It is thought that these memoirs

were the work of Cornaton, one of the most faithful servants of the

admiral. What follows is an abridged extract from the edition printed

at Grenoble in 1669.

[30] Page 20.

[31] Page 22.

[32] Pages 94-97.

[33] Vol. i. p. 147.

[34] La Planche, Histoire de France sous François II. p. 214.

[35] See upon this point, Regnier de la Planche, Jean de Serres,

D’Aubigné, De Thou, and among the more modern historians, Anquetil,

Sismondi, M. Lacretelle, and others.

[36] Page 128.

[37] Hist. du Calvinisme, pp. 192, 193.

[38] Vol. iii. p. 278.

[39] Vie de Theodore de Bèze, pp. 207, 208.

[40] Etudes, Hist. vol. ii. p. 198. This remark is applicable to

all great ideas, political as well as religious. In the days of the

Revolution, the people overturned the monuments of the old _régime_.

Symbols bear before the masses the penalty of their origin and of

their destination. One example, which we may select from a thousand,

will illustrate the ardent passion of the iconoclasts of the

sixteenth century. The great church of Sainte Croix, at Orleans, had

been entered in the night, and pillaged during the first religious

war. Condé and Coligny hastened to put a stop to these disorders.

The prince even pointed an arquebuse at a soldier, who stood upon a

ladder ready to break an image. “My lord,” said the Huguenot to him,

“have patience till I have broken this image, and then let me die, if

you will.”

[41] Hist. des Guerres civiles de France, tome i. p. 115.

[42] Agrippa d’Aubigné, Hist. Universelle.

[43] Tome i. p. 141.

[44] Tome ii. p. 162.

[45] Histoire de M. G. Bosquet, sur les troubles advenus en la ville

de Toulouse, p. 25.

[46] Page 50.

[47] Tome ii. p. 223.

[48] Page 696.

[49] Tome v. p. 104.

[50] Esprit de la Ligue, tome i. p. 249.

[51] Page 700.

[52] Tome v. p. 117.

[53] Tome v. c. 18.

[54] Tome i. p. 383.

[55] Sismondi, Hist. des Français, tome xix. p. 2.

[56] Recueil des Choses mémorables, p. 417.

[57] A writer of the present day, M. Capefigue, carrying the ideas

and the passions of the nineteenth into the sixteenth century,

insists that Charles IX. and his court were coerced by the people

of the markets, and that the masses were moved by hatred against

the _gentry_, or the Huguenot aristocracy. Then applying to these

allegations the system of revolutionary fatality, he concludes that

_no one_ is to be blamed. (La Réforme et la Ligue, pp. 341, 346, 361,

373, _et passim_.) Such dreams are pointed out to the reader; they

are unworthy of refutation!

[58] Read again the note upon the Italians of the sixteenth century,

p. 89.

[59] Journal de Henri III. tome i. p. 45.

[60] This _Besme_ received the reward of his crime from the Cardinal

de Lorraine, who permitted him to marry one of his natural daughters:

a double disgrace for a priest to recompense such a man, and to have

such a reward to bestow.

[61] Maimbourg, Hist. du Calvinisme, p. 486.

[62] Aignan, Biblioth. étrangère, tome i. p. 229.

[63] Le Stratagème de Charles IX. p. 178.

[64] Hist. d’Angleterre, vol. vii. p. 201.

[65] M. Lacretelle has collected the proofs in his Hist. de Guerres

de Religion.

[66] Etudes hist. tome iv. p. 296.

[67] Page 462.

[68] Journal of Henry III. vol. i. pp. 71, 72.

[69] Recueil de Choses mémor. p. 546.

[70] Book iv. c. 5.

[71] Book iv. c. 3.

[72] For the history of this period, consult the Règne de Henri III.,

by Mézeray, 3 vols. 8vo. The new editor, M. Scipion Combet, has added

to it a summary of the history of the French Protestants from the

commencement of the Reformation to the law of the 18th Germinal, year

10.—This is a solid work, and may be read with profit.

[73] See De Thou, l. xcvi. vol. vii. p. 495, and the memoirs of the

sixteenth century. Among the moderns, see the Etudes Histor. of M.

de Châteaubriand, vol. iv. p. 371. “It was the policy of this pope,”

says he, in speaking of his sacrilegious comparisons, “to encourage

fanatics, who were ready to kill kings, in the name of the papal

power.”

[74] Elie Benoit, Hist. de l’Edit de Nantes, vol. i. p. 121.

[75] Vol. ii. p. 295.

[76] Elie Benoît, vol. ii. p. 377.

[77] Le Mercure Français, vol. viii. p. 637.

[78] Arcère, Hist. de la Rochelle, vol. i. p. 288.

[79] Vol. i. p. 88.

[80] Eclaircissements histor. vol. i. pp. 46, 47.

[81] Those who are desirous of acquainting themselves minutely with

the situation of the Reformed at this period, must read the Histoire

de l’Edit de Nantes, by Elie Benoit. The author has filled five 4to.

volumes with the recital of the vexations, injustice, violence, and

persecutions, which his co-religionists suffered from the reign of

Henry IV. to the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes.

[82] Staeudlin, Geschichte der Theol. Wissenschaften, vol. ii. pp.

58, 59. See also Schroeck, Christl. K. Geschichte, vol. v. pp.

297-309.

[83] _I.e._ an arbitrary warrant of imprisonment, without accusation

or trial.—TRANS.

[84] “The Right Use of the Fathers,” a work which cannot be too

widely circulated or studied in the present times.—TRANS.

[85] Vol. iv. p. 99.

[86] Vol. iii. p. 139.

[87] Vol. i. p. 175.

[88] Vol. xxv. p. 481.

[89] Vol. i. p. 97.

[90] Vol. iv. pp. 479, 480. The author, who was a contemporary

of these events, relates the facts with precision, indicates the

localities, and cites names; so that his narrative bears the impress

of perfect veracity, which is, besides, confirmed by the memoirs of

the times. We suppress the details, as almost too painful for perusal.

[91] Vol. iv. p. 502.

[92] Pages 124-126.

[93] Vol. v. p. 681.

[94] Vol. v. pp. 832, 833.

[95] Page 52.

[96] A more disgraceful peace to England than that of Utrecht was

probably never made; and if its terms are considered to have been

“hard” to France, most assuredly it must ever be acknowledged,—to use

the words of Lord Mahon, in his admirable History of England (vol. i.

p. 6, ed. 1853),—to have been “a sin against light; not the ignorance

which is deluded, but the falsehood which deludes.”—TRANS.

[97] See above, p. 176.

[98] Vol. v. pp. 953, 554.

[99] Essai sur l’Etablissement Monarchique de Louis XIV. p. 413.

[100] Insurgents in the reign of Louis XIV., who were so

called.—TRANS.

[101] Capefigue, Louis XIV. vol. ii. chap. 24, p. 258. The author

is in error as to the number of pastors, or he has included in his

list professors, students of theology, and other persons indirectly

connected with ecclesiastical functions. Rulhières also speaks of two

thousand ministers. Elie Bénoit, who was much better informed on the

subject, since he was himself one of the refugee pastors, makes the

number only seven hundred.

[102] See l’Histoire abrégé des souffrances du Sieur Elie Neau sur

les galères et dans les cachots de Marseille: Rotterdam, 1701.

[103] Edition Lefevre, p. 33. Some of the verses have a very striking

allusion:

On peut des plus grands rois surprendre la justice.

[Great kings can suppress justice.]

Et le roi trop crédule a signé cet édit.

[And a king too credulous has signed that edict.]

[104] Hist. des Camisards, book i. p. 25.

[105] Vol. ii. p. 278.

[106] Lettres Pastor. vol. iii. p. 60.

[107] Théâtre Sacré des Cevennes.

[108] Page 80 and _seq._

[109] M. N. Peyrat. Hist. des Pasteurs du Désert, vol. ii. pp. 513,

514. The author has carefully collected and related, in a lively and

interesting manner, the principal circumstances of the war of the

Cévenoles.

[110] Vol. vii. p. 18 et seq.

[111] Page 413.

[112] The reader, if desirous of more ample information concerning

this period, may peruse with advantage the work of M. Charles

Coquerel, entitled: Histoire des Eglises du Désert, in two vols. 8vo.

M. Coquerel had access to important documents, and has used them most

judiciously. We shall have frequent occasion to refer to his work

in the course of this history. The Histoire de l’Eglise Chrétienne

Réformée de Nismes, by M. le pasteur Borrel, may also be consulted:

the work is exact, and under a particular or local title, contains

many things of general interest.

[113] Mélanges de relig. et de morale, vol. v. p. 181.

[114] Vol. xxvii. p. 514.

[115] Hist. de France pendant le dix-huitième siècle, vol. ii. p. 7.

[116] After reading the correspondence of the intendants, M.

Lemontey, in his Essays upon the Monarchical Establishment of Louis

XIV., asserts that certain curates required of the heretics, before

they would bless their marriages, “that they should curse their

deceased parents, and swear that they believed in their everlasting

damnation!”—Vol. ii. p. 157.

[117] Pages 35, 103.

[118] Bibliothèque Française, vol. xxii. pp. 288, 289.

[119] Armand de la Chapelle, La Nécessité du Culte public, &c.

[120] Pages 9, 45, 46.

[121] Pages 48, 49.

[122] Mémoire Hist. pp. 65, 66.

[123] M. C. Coquerel, Histoire des Eglises du Désert, vol. ii. pp.

168-170.

[124] The edition from which this translation is made, was revised by

the author in 1851. Since that time, the voice of France is silenced

by tyranny and oppression; the Roman Catholic priesthood is gaining

strength, and commencing its work of persecution; and two prisoners,

for the political offence of liberty of thought and speech, have

been sentenced to transportation at Cayenne, _by the mere order of a

minister of police_, without the form of a trial!—TRANS.

[125] A word of explanation is necessary in respect of the

restriction with regard to _other ecclesiastics than the proper

curates_; there were, even then, priests, either complaisant or

venal enough, to bless the marriages of the Reformed for a certain

price, and without any examination. As public opinion gradually grew

satisfied with the laws against the Calvinists, the number of these

priests also increased to such an extent, that the bargains became

an open kind of traffic, of which, however, the rich alone could

avail themselves. Many of the Protestants, besides, declined, from

conscientious motives, to incur even the appearance of hypocrisy by

inscribing their marriages upon the registers of the priests.

[126] J. Pons, Notice Biographique, &c.

[127] Archives du Christianisme, vol. xx. p. 293.

[128] In many respects, the celebrated George Whitfield seems

to have resembled Rabaut; his voice could also be heard at an

immense distance, and from his published discourses, no one would

suppose that their effect upon his hearers could have been so

startling.—TRANS.

[129] Vol. ii. p. 347.

[130] Les Toulousaines, Lettre xxii.

[131] They were _gentilshommes verriers_. The trade of a glass

manufacturer did not disparage their nobility.—TRANS.

[132] Book xxv. c. 10.

[133] Répertoire Ecclésiast. pp. 7, 8.

[134] A work has been published in the German language, entitled:

“The Protestant Church of France from 1787 to 1846” (_Die

Protestantische Kirche Frankreichs_, &c.), 2 vols. 8vo: Leipsig,

1848. The author is not named; but his work is edited by M. Gieseler,

a professor of theology, well known for his excellent ecclesiastical

history and other writings. The book we also refer to above is full

of valuable materials and documents.

[135] Lauze de Peret, Eclaircissements histor., &c. 2nd book, p. 163.

[136] Lauze de Peret, 3rd book, p. 35.

[137] J. Pons, Notice biographique.

[138] M. Artaud gives the details of this curious and generally

unknown negotiation, in his History of Pope Pius VII. vol. i. p. 265,

_et seq._

[139] Vues sur le Protestantisme en France, vol. ii. p. 265.

[140] Vol. ii. p. 266.

[141] Page 192

[142] M. Lauze de Peret, book iii. p. 10.

[143] It is said that certain advisers of Louis XVIII. had

endeavoured to persuade him to put the sixth article before the

fifth. The king answered with much wisdom, that it was not right to

put the exception before the rule.

[144] Archives du Christianisme, vol. iii. p. 406, _et seq._

[145] Arch. du Christ. vol. xi. p. 241, _et seq._ See another notice

upon the life of M. de Staël, at the head of his Œuvres Diverses,

published in 1829.

[146] Critiques et Portraits littéraires, vol. v. pp. 144, 147.

[147] Le Semeur, vol. xvii. p. 141.

[148] M. Grandpierre, Notices sur le Vice-Amiral Ver-Huell, p. 38,

_et passim_.

[149] The hopes of the author, raised by the enlightened political

views of the amiable and upright Lamartine, have not been realized.

The _coup-d’état_ of December, 1851, by which Louis Napoleon rejected

the opportunity of displaying to the world that he could sacrifice

personal ambition to the patriotic observance of the oath he had

sworn, to maintain the Constitution inviolably, has induced a policy

of intimate alliance with the Romish priesthood. Passing events daily

show that whatever advantage the sacerdotal order of the (Roman)

Catholics may be supposed to derive from a State connection, that

union deeply injures the vitality of Protestantism. As stated in

Louis Napoleon’s proclamation promulgating his constitution, “It is

still the _Concordat_ that regulates the relations of the State with

the Church.” The 20th article of the Constitution makes the cardinals

_ex officio_ members of the senate.—TRANSL.

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE

Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been

corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within

the text and consultation of external sources.

Some hyphens in words have been silently removed, some added,

when a predominant preference was found in the original book.

Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text,

and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained.

Pg iv: ‘monk of Wittemberg’ replaced by ‘monk of Wittenberg’.

Pg 10: ‘the ninety-nine theses’ replaced by ‘the ninety-five theses’.

Pg 58: ‘was haunte by’ replaced by ‘was haunted by’.

Pg 59: ‘such a courtezan’ replaced by ‘such a courtesan’.

Pg 103: ‘of the doctines’ replaced by ‘of the doctrines’.

Pg 134: ‘Jean Poltot de Méré’ replaced by ‘Jean Poltrot de Méré’.

Pg 143: ‘whom Philp II. had’ replaced by ‘whom Philip II. had’.

Pg 148: ‘Montclar, Bruniquel’ replaced by ‘Monclar, Bruniquel’.

Pg 151: ‘instant Montesquiou’ replaced by ‘instant Montesquieu’.

Pg 154: ‘of Cevannes, of’ replaced by ‘of Cevennes, of’.

Pg 158: ‘Admiral de Colingy’ replaced by ‘Admiral de Coligny’.

Pg 185: ‘one at Strasburg’ replaced by ‘one at Strasbourg’.

Pg 186: ‘and Heny III. only’ replaced by ‘and Henry III. only’.

Pg 226: ‘justify inghimself’ replaced by ‘justifying himself’.

Pg 239: ‘_dragonades_’ replaced by ‘_dragonnades_’.

Pg 248: ‘_dênoument_’ replaced by ‘_dénouement_’.

Pg 285: ‘Auberton awakened’ replaced by ‘Aubertin awakened’.

Pg 332: ‘and polical unity’ replaced by ‘and political unity’.

Pg 355: ‘of the Cévenols’ replaced by ‘of the Cévenoles’.

Pg 365: ‘parents, hxxe made’ replaced by ‘parents, have made’.

Pg 386: ‘acadamies of Sédan’ replaced by ‘academies of Sédan’.

Pg 392: ‘Cévenols had looked’ replaced by ‘Cévenoles had looked’.

Pg 401: ‘they combated it’ replaced by ‘they combatted it’.

Pg 451: ‘at Nismes in 1742.’ replaced by ‘at Nismes in 1743.’.

Pg 477 Footnote 141: ‘Page ’ replaced by ‘Page 192’.

Pg 488: ‘de Lamenais’ replaced by ‘de Lamennais’.