the House of Austria, see _Sully_, _[OE]conomies Royales_, vol.
ii. p. 291, vol. iii. pp. 162, 166, vol. iv. pp. 289, 290, 321,
343, 344, 364, vol. v. p. 123, vol. vi. p. 293, vol. vii. p. 303,
vol. viii. pp. 195, 202, 348.
[95] _Capefigue's Richelieu_, vol. i. pp. 26, 369; _Mém. de Montglat_,
vol. i. pp. 16, 17; _Le Vassor_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol i. p.
268, vol. vi. p. 349; _Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. xxii.
p. 227. Her husband, Henry IV., said that she had 'the soul of a
Spaniard.' _Capefigue_, _Hist. de la Réforme_, vol. viii. p. 150.
[96] This was, in her opinion, a master-stroke of policy: 'Entêtée du
double mariage avec l'Espagne qu'elle avoit ménagé avec tant
d'application, et qu'elle regardoit comme le plus ferme appui de
son autorité.' _Le Vassor_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. i. pp.
453, 454.
It might have been expected that when Richelieu, a great dignitary of
the Romish church, was placed at the head of affairs, he would have
reëstablished a connexion so eagerly desired by the profession to which
he belonged.[97] But his conduct was not regulated by such views as
these. His object was, not to favour the opinions of a sect, but to
promote the interests of a nation. His treaties, his diplomacy, and the
schemes of his foreign alliances, were all directed, not against the
enemies of the church, but against the enemies of France. By erecting
this new standard of action, Richelieu took a great step towards
secularizing the whole system of European politics. For he thus made the
theoretical interests of men subordinate to their practical interests.
Before his time, the rulers of France, in order to punish their
Protestant subjects, had not hesitated to demand the aid of the Catholic
troops of Spain; and in so doing, they merely acted upon the old
opinion, that it was the chief duty of a government to suppress heresy.
This pernicious doctrine was first openly repudiated by Richelieu. As
early as 1617, and before he had established his power, he, in an
instruction to one of the foreign ministers which is still extant, laid
it down as a principle, that, in matters of state, no Catholic ought to
prefer a Spaniard to a French Protestant.[98] To us, indeed, in the
progress of society, such preference of the claims of our country to
those of our creed, has become a matter of course; but in those days it
was a startling novelty.[99] Richelieu, however, did not fear to push
the paradox even to its remotest consequences. The Catholic church
justly considered that its interests were bound up with those of the
House of Austria;[100] but Richelieu, directly he was called to the
council, determined to humble that house in both its branches.[101] To
effect this, he openly supported the bitterest enemies of his own
religion. He aided the Lutherans against the Emperor of Germany; he
aided the Calvinists against the king of Spain. During the eighteen
years he was supreme, he steadily pursued the same undeviating
policy.[102] When Philip attempted to repress the Dutch Protestants,
Richelieu made common cause with them; at first, advancing them large
sums of money, and afterwards inducing the French king to sign a treaty
of intimate alliance with those who, in the opinion of the church, he
ought rather to have chastized as rebellious heretics.[103] In the same
way, when that great war broke out, in which the emperor attempted to
subjugate to the true faith the consciences of German Protestants,
Richelieu stood forward as their protector; he endeavoured from the
beginning to save their leader the Palatine;[104] and, failing in that,
he concluded in their favour an alliance with Gustavus Adolphus,[105]
the ablest military commander the Reformers had then produced. Nor did
he stop there. After the death of Gustavus, he, seeing that the
Protestants were thus deprived of their great leader, made still more
vigorous efforts in their favour.[106] He intrigued for them in foreign
courts; he opened negotiations in their behalf; and eventually he
organized for their protection a public confederacy, in which all
ecclesiastical considerations were set at defiance. This league, which
formed an important precedent in the international polity of Europe, was
not only contracted by Richelieu with the two most powerful enemies of
his own church, but it was, from its tenor, what Sismondi emphatically
calls a 'Protestant confederation'--a Protestant confederation, he says,
between France, England, and Holland.[107]
[97] So late as 1656, the French clergy wished 'to hasten a peace with
Spain, and to curb the heretics in France,' _Letter from Pell to
Thurloe_, written in 1656, and printed in _Vaughan's Protectorate
of Cromwell_, vol. i. p. 436, 8vo, 1839. During the minority of
Louis XIII. we hear of 'les zéléz catholiques, et ceux qui
désiroient, à quelque prix que ce fut, l'union des deux roys, et
des deux couronnes de France et d'Espagne, comme le seul moyen
propre, selon leur advis, pour l'extirpation des hérésies dans la
chrestienté.' _Sully_, _[OE]con. Royales_, vol. ix. p. 181:
compare vol. vii. p. 248, on 'les zéléz catholiques espagnolisez
de France.'
[98] See _Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. xxii. pp. 387-389, where
the importance of this document is noticed, and it is said that
Richelieu had drawn it up 'avec beaucoup de soin.' The language of
it is very peremptory: 'Que nul catholique n'est si aveugle
d'estimer en matière d'état un Espagnol meilleur qu'un Français
huguenot.'
[99] Even in the reign of Henry IV. the French Protestants were not
considered to be Frenchmen: 'The intolerant dogmas of Roman
Catholicism did not recognize them as Frenchmen. They were looked
upon as foreigners, or rather as enemies; and were treated as
such.' _Felice's Hist. of the Protestants of France_, p. 216.
[100] Sismondi says, under the year 1610, 'Toute l'église catholique
croyoit son sort lié à celui de la maison d'Autriche,' _Hist. des
Français_, vol. xxii. p. 180.
[101] 'Sa vue dominante fut l'abaissement de la maison d'Autriche.'
_Flassan_, _Hist. de la Diplomatie Française_, vol. iii. p. 81.
And, on the early formation of this scheme, see _Mém. de la
Rochefoucauld_, vol. i. p. 350. De Retz says, that before
Richelieu, no one had even thought of such a step: 'Celui
d'attaquer la formidable maison d'Autriche n'avoit été imaginé de
personne.' _Mém. de Retz_, vol. i. p. 45. This is rather too
strongly expressed; but the whole paragraph is curious, as
written by a man who possessed great ability, which De Retz
undoubtedly did, and who, though hating Richelieu, could not
refrain from bearing testimony to his immense services.
[102] 'Obwohl Cardinal der römischen Kirche, trug Richelieu kein
Bedenken, mit den Protestanten selbst unverhohlen in Bund zu
treten,' _Ranke_, _die Päpste_, vol. ii. p. 510. Compare, in
_Mém. de Fontenay Mareuil_, vol. ii. pp. 28, 29, the reproach
which the nuncio Spada addressed to Richelieu for treating with
the Protestants, 'de la paix qui se traitoit avec les huguenots.'
See also _Le Vassor_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. v. pp. 236,
354-356, 567; and a good passage in _Lavallée_, _Hist. des
Français_, vol. iii. p. 90,--an able little work, and perhaps the
best small history ever published of a great country.
[103] De Retz mentions a curious illustration of the feelings of the
ecclesiastical party respecting this treaty. He says, that the
Bishop of Beauvais, who, the year after the death of Richelieu,
was for a moment at the head of affairs, began his administration
by giving to the Dutch their choice, either to abandon their
religion, or else forfeit their alliance with France: 'Et il
demanda dès le premier jour aux Hollandois qu'ils se
convertissent à la religion catholique, s'ils vouloient demeurer
dans l'alliance de France.' _Mém. du Cardinal de Retz_, vol. i.
p. 39. This, I suppose, is the original authority for the
statement in the _Biog. Univ._ vol. xiv. p. 440; though, as is
too often the case in that otherwise valuable work, the writer
has omitted to indicate the source of his information.
[104] In 1626, he attempted to form a league 'en faveur du Palatin,'
_Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. xxii. p. 576. Sismondi
seems not quite certain as to the sincerity of his proposal; but
as to this there can, I think, be little doubt; for it appears
from his own memoirs, that even in 1624 he had in view the
recovery of the Palatinate. _Mém. de Richelieu_, vol. ii. p. 405;
and again in 1625, p. 468.
[105] _Sismondi_, vol. xxiii. p. 173; _Capefigue's Richelieu_, vol. i.
p. 415; _Le Vassor_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. vi. pp. 12, 600;
and at p. 489: 'Le roi de Suède qui comptoit uniquement sur le
cardinal.'
[106] Compare _Mém. de Montglat_, vol. i. pp. 74, 75, vol. ii. pp. 92,
93, with _Mém. de Fontenay Mareuil_, vol. ii. p. 198; and
_Howell's Letters_, p. 247. The different views which occurred to
his fertile mind in consequence of the death of Gustavus, are
strikingly summed up in _Mém. de Richelieu_, vol. vii. pp.
272-277. On his subsequent pecuniary advances, see vol. ix.
p. 395.
[107] In 1633, 'les ambassadeurs de France, d'Angleterre et de Hollande
mirent à profit le repos de l'hiver pour resserrer la
confédération protestante,' _Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_,
vol. xxiii. p. 221. Compare, in _Whitelocke's Swedish Embassy_,
vol. i. p. 275, the remark made twenty years later by Christina,
daughter of Gustavus, on the union with 'papists.'
These things alone would have made the administration of Richelieu a
great epoch in the history of European civilization. For his government
affords the first example of an eminent Catholic statesman
systematically disregarding ecclesiastical interests, and showing that
disregard in the whole scheme of his foreign, as well as of his
domestic, policy. Some instances, indeed, approaching to this, may be
found, at an earlier period, among the petty rulers of Italian states;
but, even there, such attempts have never been successful; they had
never been continued for any length of time, nor had they been carried
out on a scale large enough to raise them to the dignity of
international precedents. The peculiar glory of Richelieu is, that his
foreign policy was, not occasionally, but invariably, governed by
temporal considerations; nor do I believe that, during the long tenure
of his power, there is to be found the least proof of his regard for
those theological interests, the promotion of which had long been looked
upon as a matter of paramount importance. By thus steadily subordinating
the church to the state; by enforcing the principle of this
subordination, on a large scale, with great ability, and with unvarying
success, he laid the foundation of that purely secular polity, the
consolidation of which has, since his death, been the aim of all the
best European diplomatists. The result was a most salutary change, which
had been for some time preparing, but which, under him, was first
completed. For, by the introduction of this system, an end was put to
religious wars; and the chances of peace were increased, by thus
removing one of the causes to which the interruption of peace had often
been owing.[108] At the same time, there was prepared the way for that
final separation of theology from politics, which it will be the
business of future generations fully to achieve. How great a step had
been taken in this direction, appears from the facility with which the
operations of Richelieu were continued by men every way his inferiors.
Less than two years after his death, there was assembled the Congress of
Westphalia;[109] the members of which concluded that celebrated peace,
which is remarkable, as being the first comprehensive attempt to adjust
the conflicting interests of the leading European countries.[110] In
this important treaty, ecclesiastical interests were altogether
disregarded;[111] and the contracting parties, instead of, as
heretofore, depriving each other of their possessions, took the bolder
course of indemnifying themselves at the expense of the church, and did
not hesitate to seize her revenues, and secularize several of her
bishoprics.[112] From this grievous insult, which became a precedent in
the public law of Europe, the spiritual power has never recovered; and
it is remarked by a very competent authority that, since that period,
diplomatists have, in their official acts, neglected religious
interests, and have preferred the advocacy of matters relating to the
commerce and colonies of their respective countries.[113] The truth of
this observation is confirmed by the interesting fact, that the Thirty
Years' War, to which this same treaty put an end, is the last great
religious war which has ever been waged;[114] no civilized people,
during two centuries, having thought it worth while to peril their own
safety in order to disturb the belief of their neighbours. This, indeed,
is but a part of that vast secular movement, by which superstition has
been weakened, and the civilization of Europe secured. Without, however,
discussing that subject, I will now endeavour to show how the policy of
Richelieu, in regard to the French Protestant church, corresponded with
his policy in regard to the French Catholic church; so, that, in both
departments, this great statesman, aided by that progress of knowledge
for which his age was remarkable, was able to struggle with prejudices
from which men, slowly and with infinite difficulty, were attempting to
emerge.
[108] This change may be illustrated by comparing the work of Grotius
with that of Vattel. These two eminent men are still respected as
the most authoritative expounders of international law; but there
is this important difference between them, that Vattel wrote more
than a century after Grotius, and when the secular principles
enforced by Richelieu had penetrated the minds even of common
politicians. Therefore, Vattel says (_Le Droit des Gens_, vol. i.
pp. 379, 380): 'On demande s'il est permis de faire alliance avec
une nation qui ne professe pas la même religion? Si les traités
faits avec les ennemis de la foi sont valides? Grotius a traité
la question assez au long. Cette discussion pouvait être
nécessaire dans un temps où la fureur des partis obscurcissait
encore des principes qu'elle avait long-temps fait oublier, osons
croire qu'elle serait superflue dans notre siècle. La loi
naturelle seule régit les traités des nations; la différence de
religion y est absolument étrangère.' See also p. 318, and vol.
ii. p. 151. On the other hand, Grotius opposes alliances between
nations of different religion, and says, that nothing can justify
them except 'une extrême nécessité.... Car il faut chercher
premièrement le règne céleste, c'est à dire penser avant toutes
choses à la propagation de l'évangile.' And he further recommends
that princes should follow the advice given on this subject by
Foulques, Archbishop of Rheims! _Grotius_, _le Droit de la Guerre
et de la Paix_, livre ii. chap. xv. sec. xi. vol. i. pp. 485, 486,
edit. Barbeyrac, Amsterdam, 1724, 4to; a passage the more
instructive, because Grotius was a man of great genius and great
humanity. On religious wars, as naturally recognized in barbarous
times, see the curious and important work, _Institutes of
Timour_, pp. 141, 333, 335.
[109] 'Le Congrès de Westphalie s'ouvrit le 10 avril 1643.' _Lavallée_,
_Hist. des Français_, vol. iii. p. 156. Its two great divisions
at Munster and Osnabruck were formed in March 1644. _Flassan_,
_Hist. de la Diplomatie_, vol. iii. p. 110. Richelieu died in
December, 1642. _Biog. Univ._ vol. xxxviii. p. 28.
[110] 'Les règnes de Charles-Quint et de Henri IV font époque pour
certaines parties du droit international; mais le point de départ
le plus saillant, c'est la paix de Westphalie.' _Eschbach_,
_Introduc. à l'Etude du Droit_, Paris, 1846, p. 92. Compare the
remarks on Mably, in _Biog. Univ._ vol. xxvi. p. 7, and
_Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. xxiv. p. 179: 'base au
droit public de l'Europe.'
[111] Compare the indignation of the pope at this treaty (_Vattel_, _le
Droit des Gens_, vol. ii. p. 28), with _Ranke's Päpste_, vol. ii.
p. 576: 'Das religiöse Element ist zurückgetreten; die
politischen Rücksichten beherrschen die Welt:' a summary of the
general state of affairs.
[112] 'La France obtint par ce traité, en indemnité, la souveraineté des
trois évêchés, Metz, Toul et Verdun, ainsi que celle d'Alsace. La
satisfaction ou indemnité des autres parties intéressées fut
convenue, en grande partie, aux dépens de l'église, et moyennant
la sécularisation de plusieurs évêchés et bénéfices
ecclésiastiques.' _Koch_, _Tableau des Révolutions_, vol. i. p.
328.
[113] Dr. Vaughan (_Protectorate of Cromwell_, vol. i. p. civ.) says:
'It is a leading fact, also, in the history of modern Europe,
that, from the peace of Westphalia, in 1648, religion, as the
great object of negotiation, began everywhere to give place to
questions relating to colonies and commerce.' Charles Butler
observed, that this treaty 'considerably lessened the influence
of religion on politics.' _Butler's Reminiscences_, vol. i. p.
181.
[114] The fact of the Thirty Years' War being a religious contest,
formed the basis of one of the charges which the church party
brought against Richelieu: and an author, who wrote in 1634,
'montroit bien au long que l'alliance du roy de France avec les
protestantes étoit contraire aux intérêts de la religion
catholique; parce que la guerre des Provinces Unies, et celle
d'Allemagne étoient des guerres de religion.' _Benoist_, _Hist.
de l'Edit de Nantes_, vol. ii. p. 536.
The treatment of the French Protestants by Richelieu is, undoubtedly,
one of the most honourable parts of his system; and in it, as in other
liberal measures, he was assisted by the course of preceding events. His
administration, taken in connexion with that of Henry IV. and the
queen-regent, presents the noble spectacle of a toleration far more
complete than any which had then been seen in Catholic Europe. While in
other Christian countries, men were being incessantly persecuted,
simply because they held opinions different from those professed by the
established clergy, France refused to follow the general example, and
protected those heretics whom the church was eager to punish. Indeed,
not only were they protected, but, when they possessed abilities, they
were openly rewarded. In addition to their appointments to civil
offices, many of them were advanced to high military posts; and Europe
beheld, with astonishment, the armies of the king of France led by
heretical generals. Rohan, Lesdiguières, Chatillon, La Force, Bernard de
Weimar, were among the most celebrated of the military leaders employed
by Louis XIII.; and all of them were Protestants, as also were some
younger, but distinguished officers, such as Gassion, Rantzau,
Schomberg, and Turenne. For now, nothing was beyond the reach of men
who, half a century earlier, would, on account of their heresies, have
been persecuted to the death. Shortly before the accession of Louis
XIII., Lesdiguières, the ablest general among the French Protestants,
was made marshal of France.[115] Fourteen years later, the same high
dignity was conferred upon two other Protestants, Chatillon and La
Force; the former of whom is said to have been the most influential of
the schismatics.[116] Both these appointments were in 1622;[117] and, in
1634, still greater scandal was caused by the elevation of Sully, who,
notwithstanding his notorious heresy, also received the staff of marshal
of France.[118] This was the work of Richelieu, and it gave serious
offence to the friends of the church; but the great statesman paid so
little attention to their clamour, that, after the civil war was
concluded, he took another step equally obnoxious. The Duke de Rohan was
the most active of all the enemies of the established church, and was
looked up to by the Protestants as the main support of their party. He
had taken up arms in their favour, and, declining to abandon his
religion, had, by the fate of war, been driven from France. But
Richelieu, who was acquainted with his ability, cared little about his
opinions. He, therefore, recalled him from exile, employed him in a
negotiation with Switzerland, and sent him on foreign service, as
commander of one of the armies of the king of France.[119]
[115] According to a contemporary, he received this appointment without
having asked for it: 'sans être à la cour ni l'avoir demandé.'
_Mém. de Fontenay_, _Mareuil_, vol. i. p. 70. In 1622, even the
lieutenants of Lesdiguières were Protestants: 'ses lieutenants,
qui estant tous huguenots.' _Ibid._ vol. i. p. 538. These memoirs
are very valuable in regard to political and military matters;
their author having played a conspicuous part in the transactions
which he describes.
[116] 'Il n'y avoit personne dans le parti huguenot si considérable que
lui.' _Tallemant des Réaux_, _Historiettes_, vol. v. p. 204.
[117] _Biog. Univ._ vol. xv. p. 247; _Benoist_, _Hist. de l'Edit de
Nantes_, vol. ii. p. 400.
[118] Additions to _Sully_, _[OE]conomies Royales_, vol. viii. p.
496; _Smedley's Hist. of the Reformed Religion in France_,
vol. iii. p. 204.
[119] _Capefigue's Richelieu_, vol. ii. p. 57; _Mém. de Rohan_, vol. i.
pp. 66, 69; _Mém. de Bassompierre_, vol. iii. pp. 324, 348; _Mém.
de Montglat_, vol. i. p. 86; _Le Vassor_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_,
vol. vii. p. 157, vol. viii. p. 284. This great rise in the
fortunes of Rohan took place at different times between 1632 and
1635.
Such were the tendencies which characterized this new state of things.
It is hardly necessary to observe how beneficial this great change must
have been; since by it men were encouraged to look to their country as
the first consideration, and, discarding their old disputes, Catholic
soldiers were taught to obey heretical generals, and follow their
standards to victory. In addition to this, the mere social amalgamation,
arising from the professors of different creeds mixing in the same camp,
and fighting under the same banner, must have still further aided to
disarm the mind, partly by merging theological feuds in a common, and
yet a temporal, object, and partly by showing to each sect, that their
religious opponents were not entirely bereft of human virtue; that they
still retained some of the qualities of men; and that it was even
possible to combine the errors of heresy with all the capabilities of a
good and competent citizen.[120]
[120] Late in the sixteenth century, Duplessis Mornay had to state what
was then considered by the majority of men an incredible paradox,
'que ce n'estoit pas chose incompatible d'estre bon huguenot et
bon Françoys tout ensemble.' _Duplessis_, _Mém. et Correspond._
vol. i. p. 146. Compare p. 213, vol. ii. pp. 45, 46, 77, 677,
vol. vii. p. 294, vol. xi. pp. 31, 68; interesting passages for
the history of opinions in France.
But, while the hateful animosities by which France had long been
distracted, were, under the policy of Richelieu, gradually subsiding, it
is singular to observe that, though the prejudices of the Catholics
obviously diminished, those of the Protestants seemed, for a time, to
retain all their activity. It is, indeed, a striking proof of the
perversity and pertinacity of such feelings, that it was precisely in
the country, and at the period, when the Protestants were best treated,
that they displayed most turbulence. And in this, as in all such cases,
the cause principally at work was the influence of that class to which
circumstances, I will now explain, had secured a temporary ascendency.
For, the diminution of the theological spirit had effected in the
Protestants a remarkable but a very natural result. The increasing
toleration of the French government had laid open to their leaders
prizes which before they could never have obtained. As long as all
offices were refused to the Protestant nobles, it was natural that they
should cling with the greater zeal to their own party, by whom alone
their virtues were acknowledged. But, when the principle was once
recognised, that the state would reward men for their abilities, without
regard to their religion, there was introduced into every sect a new
element of discord. The leaders of the Reformers could not fail to feel
some gratitude, or, at all events, some interest for the government
which employed them; and the influence of temporal considerations being
thus strengthened, the influence of religious ties must have been
weakened. It is impossible that opposite feelings should be paramount,
at the same moment, in the same mind. The further men extend their view,
the less they care for each of the details of which the view is
composed. Patriotism is a corrective of superstition; and the more we
feel for our country, the less we feel for our sect. Thus it is, that
in the progress of civilization, the scope of the intellect is widened;
its horizon is enlarged; its sympathies are multiplied; and, as the
range of its excursions is increased, the tenacity of its grasp is
slackened, until, at length, it begins to perceive that the infinite
variety of circumstances necessarily causes an infinite variety of
opinions; that a creed, which is good and natural for one man, may be
bad and unnatural for another; and that, so far from interfering with
the march of religious convictions, we should be content to look into
ourselves, search our own hearts, purge our own souls, soften the evil
of our own passions, and extirpate that insolent and intolerant spirit,
which is at once the cause and the effect of all theological
controversy.
It was in this direction, that a prodigious step was taken by the French
in the first half of the seventeenth century. Unfortunately, however,
the advantages which arose were accompanied by serious drawbacks. From
the introduction of temporal considerations among the Protestant
leaders, there occurred two results of considerable importance. The
first result was, that many of the Protestants changed their religion.
Before the Edict of Nantes, they had been constantly persecuted, and
had, as constantly, increased.[121] But, under the tolerant policy of
Henry IV. and Louis XIII., they continued to diminish.[122] Indeed, this
was the natural consequence of the growth of that secular spirit which,
in every country, has assuaged religious animosities. For, by the action
of that spirit, the influence of social and political views began to
outweigh those theological views to which the minds of men had long been
confined. As these temporal ties increased in strength, there was, of
course, generated among the rival factions an increased tendency to
assimilate; while, as the Catholics were not only much more numerous,
but in every respect, more influential, than their opponents, they
reaped the benefit of this movement, and gradually drew over to their
side many of their former enemies. That this absorption of the smaller
sect into the larger, is due to the cause I have mentioned, is rendered
still more evident by the interesting fact, that the change began among
the heads of the party; and that it was not the inferior Protestants who
first abandoned their leaders, but it was rather the leaders who
deserted their followers. This was because the leaders, being more
educated than the great body of the people, were more susceptible to the
sceptical movement, and therefore set the example of an indifference to
disputes which still engrossed the popular mind. As soon as this
indifference had reached a certain point, the attractions offered by the
conciliating policy of Louis XIII. became irresistible; and the
Protestant nobles, in particular, being most exposed to political
temptations, began to alienate themselves from their own party, in order
to form an alliance with a court which showed itself ready to reward
their merits.
[121] See _Benoist_, _Hist. de l'Edit de Nantes_, vol. i. pp. 10, 14,
18; _De Thou_, _Hist. Univ._ vol. iii. pp. 181, 242, 357, 358,
543, 558, vol. iv. p. 155; _Relat. des Ambassadeurs Vénitiens_,
vol. i. pp. 412, 536, vol. ii. pp. 66, 74; _Ranke's Civil Wars in
France_, vol. i. pp. 279, 280, vol. ii. p. 94.
[122] Compare _Hallam's Const. Hist._ vol. i. p. 173, with _Ranke_, _die
Römischen Päpste_, vol. ii. pp. 477-479. In spite of the increase
of population, the Protestants diminished absolutely, as well as
relatively, to the Catholics. In 1598 they had 760 churches; in
1619 only 700. _Smedley's Hist. of the Reformed Religion in
France_, vol. iii. pp. 46, 145. De Thou, in the preface to his
History (vol. i. p. 320), observes, that the Protestants had
increased during the wars carried on against them, but
'diminuoient en nombre et en crédit pendant la paix.'
It is, of course, impossible to fix the exact period at which this
important change took place.[123] But we may say with certainty, that
very early in the reign of Louis XIII. many of the Protestant nobles
cared nothing for their religion, while the remainder of them ceased to
feel that interest in it which they had formerly expressed. Indeed, some
of the most eminent of them openly abandoned their creed, and joined
that very church which they had been taught to abhor as the man of sin,
and the whore of Babylon. The Duke de Lesdiguières, the greatest of all
the Protestant generals,[124] became a Catholic, and, as a reward for
his conversion, was made constable of France.[125] The Duke de la
Tremouille adopted the same course;[126] as also did the Duke de la
Meilleraye,[127] the Duke de Bouillon,[128] and a few years later the
Marquis de Montausier.[129] These illustrious nobles were among the most
powerful of the members of the Reformed communion; but they quitted it
without compunction, sacrificing their old associations in favour of
the opinions professed by the state. Among the other men of high rank,
who still remained nominally connected with the French Protestants, we
find a similar spirit. We find them lukewarm respecting matters, for
which, if they had been born fifty years earlier, they would have laid
down their lives. The Maréchal de Bouillon, who professed himself to be
a Protestant, was unwilling to change his religion; but he so comported
himself as to show that he considered its interests as subordinate to
political considerations.[130] A similar remark has been made by the
French historians concerning the Duke de Sully and the Marquis de
Chatillon, both of whom, though they were members of the Reformed
church, displayed a marked indifference to those theological interests
which had formerly been objects of supreme importance.[131] The result
was, that when, in 1621, the Protestants began their civil war against
the government, it was found that of all their great leaders, two only,
Rohan and his brother Soubise, were prepared to risk their lives in
support of their religion.[132]
[123] M. Ranke has noticed how the French Protestant nobles fell off
from their party; but he does not seem aware of the remote causes
of what he deems a sudden apostasy: 'In dem nämlichen Momente
trat nun auch die grosse Wendung der Dinge in Frankreich ein.
Fragen wir, woher im Jahr 1621 die Verluste des Protestantismus
hauptsächlich kamen, so war es die Entzweiung derselben, der
Abfall des Adels.' _Ranke_, _die Päpste_, vol. ii. p. 476.
Compare a curious passage in _Benoist_, _Hist. de l'Edit de
Nantes_, vol. ii. p. 33, from which it appears that in 1611 the
French Protestants were breaking into three parties, one of which
consisted of 'les seigneurs d'éminente qualité.'
[124] 'Le plus illustre guerrier du parti protestant.' _Sismondi_,
_Hist. des Français_, vol. xxii. p. 505. In the contemporary
despatches of the Spanish ambassador, he is called 'l'un des
huguenots les plus marquans, homme d'un grand poids, et d'un
grand crédit.' _Capefigue's Richelieu_, vol. i. p. 60. His
principal influence was in Dauphiné. _Benoist_, _Hist. de l'Edit
de Nantes_, vol. i. p. 236.
[125] _Biog. Univ._ vol. xxiv. p. 293; and a dry remark on his
'conversion' in _Mém. de Richelieu_, vol. ii. p. 215, which may
be compared with _[OE]uvres de Voltaire_, vol. xviii. p. 132, and
_Bazin_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. ii. pp. 195-197. Rohan
(_Mém._ vol. i. p. 228) plainly says, 'le duc de Lesdiguières,
ayant hardé sa religion pour la charge de connétable de France.'
See also p. 91, and _Mém. de Montglat_, vol. i. p. 37.
[126] _Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. xxiii. p. 67; _Le Vassor_,
_Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. v. pp. 809, 810, 865.
[127] _Tallemant des Réaux_, _Historiettes_, vol. iii. p. 43. La
Meilleraye was also a duke; and what is far more in his favour,
he was a friend of Descartes. _Biog. Univ._ vol. xxviii. pp. 152,
153.
[128] Sismondi (_Hist. des Français_, vol. xxiii. p. 27) says, 'il
abjura en 1637;' but according to Benoist (_Hist. de l'Edit de
Nantes_, vol. ii. p. 550) it was in 1635.
[129] _Tallemant des Réaux_, _Historiettes_, vol. iii. p. 245. Des
Réaux, who saw these changes constantly happening, simply
observes, 'notre marquis, voyant que sa religion étoit un
obstacle à son dessein, en change.'
[130] 'Mettoit la politique avant la religion.' _Sismondi_, _Hist. des
Français_, vol. xxii. p. 264. This was Henry Bouillon, whom some
writers have confused with Frederick Bouillon. Both of them were
dukes; but Henry, who was the father, and who did not actually
change his religion, was the marshal. The following notices of
him will more than confirm the remark made by Sismondi; _Mém. de
Bassompierre_, vol. i. p. 455; _Smedley's Reformed Religion in
France_, vol. iii. p. 99; _Capefigue's Richelieu_, vol. i. p.
107; _Le Vassor_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. ii. pp. 420, 467,
664, vol. iv. p. 519; _Mém. de Richelieu_, vol. i. p. 104, vol.
ii. p. 259; _Mém. de Duplessis Mornay_, vol. xi. p. 450, vol.
xii. pp. 79, 182, 263, 287, 345, 361, 412, 505.
[131] _Benoist_, _Hist. de l'Edit de Nantes_, vol. i. pp. 121, 298,
vol. ii. pp. 5, 180, 267, 341; _Capefigue's Richelieu_, vol. i.
p. 267; _Felice's Hist. of the Protestants of France_, p. 206.
Sully advised Henry IV., on mere political considerations, to
become a Catholic; and there were strong, but I believe unfounded
rumours, that he himself intended taking the same course. See
_Sully_, _[OE]conomies Royales_, vol. ii. p. 81, vol. vii. pp.
362, 363.
[132] 'There were, among all the leaders, but the Duke de Rohan and his
brother the Duke de Soubise, who showed themselves disposed to
throw their whole fortunes into the new wars of religion.'
_Felice's Hist. of the Protestants of France_, p. 241. For this,
M. Felice, as usual, quotes no authority; but Rohan himself says:
'C'est ce qui s'est passé en cette seconde guerre (1626), où
Rohan et Soubise ont eu pour contraires tous les grands de la
religion de France.' _Mém. de Rohan_, vol. i. p. 278. Rohan
claims great merit for his religious sincerity; though, from a
passage in _Mém. de Fontenay Mareuil_, vol. i. p. 418, and
another in _Benoist_, _Hist. de l'Edit de Nantes_, vol. ii. p.
173, one may be allowed to doubt if he were so single-minded as
is commonly supposed.
Thus it was, that the first great consequence of the tolerating policy
of the French government was to deprive the Protestants of the support
of their former leaders, and, in several instances, even to turn their
sympathies on the side of the Catholic church. But the other
consequence, to which I have alluded, was one of far greater moment. The
growing indifference of the higher classes of Protestants threw the
management of their party into the hands of the clergy. The post, which
was deserted by the secular leaders, was naturally seized by the
spiritual leaders. And as, in every sect, the clergy, as a body, have
always been remarkable for their intolerance of opinions different to
their own, it followed, that this change infused into the now mutilated
ranks of the Protestants an acrimony not inferior to that of the worst
times of the sixteenth century.[133] Hence it was, that by a singular,
but perfectly natural combination, the Protestants, who professed to
take their stand on the right of private judgment, became, early in the
seventeenth century, more intolerant than the Catholics, who based their
religion on the dictates of an infallible church.
[133] Sismondi notices this remarkable change; though he places it a few
years earlier than the contemporary writers do: 'Depuis que les
grands seigneurs s'étoient éloignés deg églises, c'étoient les
ministres qui étoient devenus les chefs, les représentans et les
démagogues des huguenots; et ils apportoient dans leurs
délibérations cette âpreté et cette inflexibilité théologiques
qui semblent caractériser les prêtres de toutes les religions, et
qui donnent à leurs haines une amertume plus offensante.'
_Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. xxii. p. 87. Compare p.
478. In 1621, 'Rohan lui-même voyait continuellement ses
opérations contrariées par le conseil-général des églises.'
_Lavallée_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. iii. p. 88. In the same
year, M. Capefigue (_Richelieu_, vol. i. p. 271) says, 'Le parti
modéré cessa d'avoir action sur le prêche; la direction des
forces huguenotes, était passée dans les mains des ardents,
conduits par les ministres.'
This is one of the many instances which show how superficial is the
opinion of those speculative writers, who believe that the Protestant
religion is necessarily more liberal than the Catholic. If those who
adopt this view had taken the pains to study the history of Europe in
its original sources, they would have learned, that the liberality of
every sect depends, not at all on its avowed tenets, but on the
circumstances in which it is placed, and on the amount of authority
possessed by its priesthood. The Protestant religion is, for the most
part, more tolerant than the Catholic, simply because the events which
have given rise to Protestantism have at the same time increased the
play of the intellect, and therefore lessened the power of the clergy.
But whoever has read the works of the great Calvinist divines, and above
all, whoever has studied their history, must know, that in the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries, the desire of persecuting their opponents
burnt as hotly among them, as it did among any of the Catholics even in
the worst days of the papal dominion. This is a mere matter of fact, of
which any one may satisfy himself, by consulting the original documents
of those times. And even now, there is more superstition, more bigotry,
and less of the charity of real religion, among the lower order of
Scotch Protestants, than there is among the lower order of French
Catholics. Yet for one intolerant passage in Protestant theology, it
would be easy to point out twenty in Catholic theology. The truth,
however, is, that the actions of men are governed, not by dogmas, and
text-books, and rubrics, but by the opinions and habits of their
contemporaries, by the general spirit of their age, and by the character
of those classes who are in the ascendant. This seems to be the origin
of that difference between religious theory and religious practice, of
which theologians greatly complain as a stumbling-block and an evil.
For, religious theories being preserved in books, in a doctrinal and
dogmatic form, remain a perpetual witness, and, therefore cannot be
changed without incurring the obvious charge of inconsistency, or of
heresy. But the practical part of every religion, its moral, political,
and social workings, embrace such an immense variety of interests, and
have to do with such complicated and shifting agencies, that it is
hopeless to fix them by formularies: they, even in the most rigid
systems, are left, in a great measure, to private discretion; and, being
almost entirely unwritten, they lack those precautions by which the
permanence of dogmas is effectually secured.[134] Hence it is, that
while the religious doctrines professed by a people in their national
creed are no criterion of their civilization, their religious practice
is, on the other hand, so pliant and so capable of adaptation to social
wants, that it forms one of the best standards by which the spirit of
any age can be measured.
[134] The church of Rome has always seen this, and on that account has
been, and still is, very pliant in regard to morals, and very
inflexible in regard to dogmas; a striking proof of the great
sagacity with which her affairs are administered. In _Blanco
White's Evidence against Catholicism_, p. 48, and in _Parr's
Works_, vol. vii. pp. 454, 455, there is an unfavourable and,
indeed, an unjust notice of this peculiarity, which, though
strongly marked in the Romish church, is by no means confined to
it, but is found in every religious sect which is regularly
organized. Locke, in his _Letters on Toleration_, observes, that
the clergy are naturally more eager against error than against
vice (_Works_, vol. v. pp. 6, 7, 241); and their preference of
dogmas to moral truths is also mentioned by M. C. Comte, _Traité
de Législat._ vol. i. p. 245; and is alluded to by Kant in his
comparison of 'ein moralischer Katechismus' with a
'Religionskatechismus.' _Die Metaphysik der Sitten_ (_Ethische
Methodenlehre_), in _Kant's Werke_, vol. v. p. 321. Compare
_Temple's Observations upon the United Provinces_, in _Works of
Sir W. Temple_, vol. i. p. 154, with the strict adhesion to
formularies noticed in _Ward's Ideal Church_, p. 358; and
analogous cases in _Mill's Hist. of India_, vol. i. pp. 399, 400,
and in _Wilkinson's Ancient Egyptians_, vol. iii. p. 87; also
_Combe's Notes on the United States_, vol. iii. pp. 256, 257.
It is on account of these things, that we ought not to be surprised
that, during many years, the French Protestants, who affected to appeal
to the right of private judgment, were more intolerant of the exercise
of that judgment by their adversaries than were the Catholics; although
the Catholics, by recognising an infallible church, ought, in
consistency, to be superstitious, and may be said to inherit intolerance
as their natural birthright.[135] Thus, while the Catholics were
theoretically more bigoted than the Protestants, the Protestants became
practically more bigoted than the Catholics. The Protestants continued
to insist upon that right of private judgment in religion, which the
Catholics continued to deny. Yet, such was the force of circumstances,
that each sect, in its practice, contradicted its own dogma, and acted
as if it had embraced the dogma of its opponents. The cause of this
change was very simple. Among the French, the theological spirit, as we
have already seen, was decaying; and the decline of the influence of the
clergy was, as invariably happens, accompanied by an increase of
toleration. But, among the French Protestants, this partial diminution
of the theological spirit had produced different consequences; because
it had brought about a change of leaders, which threw the command into
the hands of the clergy, and, by increasing their power, provoked a
reaction, and revived those very feelings to the decay of which the
reaction owed its origin. This seems to explain how it is, that a
religion, which is not protected by the government, usually displays
greater energy and greater vitality than one which is so protected. In
the progress of society, the theological spirit first declines among the
most educated classes; and then it is that the government can step in,
as it does in England, and, controlling the clergy, make the church a
creature of the state; thus weakening the ecclesiastical element by
tempering it with secular considerations. But, when the state refuses to
do this, the reins of power, as they fall from the hands of the upper
classes, are seized by the clergy, and there arises a state of things
of which the French Protestants in the seventeenth century, and the
Irish Catholics in our own time, form the best illustration. In such
cases, it will always happen, that the religion which is tolerated by
the government, though not fully recognised by it, will the longest
retain its vitality; because its priesthood, neglected by the state,
must cling closer to the people, in whom alone is the source of their
power.[136] On the other hand, in a religion which is favoured and
richly endowed by the state, the union between the priesthood and
inferior laity will be less intimate; the clergy will look to the
government as well as to the people; and the interference of political
views, of considerations of temporal expediency, and, if it may be added
without irreverence, the hopes of promotion will secularize the
ecclesiastical spirit,[137] and, according to the process I have already
traced, will thus hasten the march of toleration.
[135] Blanco White (_Evidence against Catholicism_, p. vi.) harshly
says, '_sincere_ Roman Catholics cannot conscientiously be
tolerant.' But he is certainly mistaken; for the question is one,
not of sincerity, but of consistency. A sincere Roman Catholic
may be, and often is, conscientiously tolerant; a consistent
Roman Catholic, never.
[136] We also see this very clearly in England, where the dissenting
clergy have much more influence among their hearers than the
clergy of the Establishment have among theirs. This has often
been noticed by impartial observers, and we are now possessed of
statistical proof that 'the great body of Protestant dissenters
are more assiduous' in attending religious worship than churchmen
are. See a valuable essay by Mr. Mann _On the Statistical
Position of Religious Bodies in England and Wales_, in _Journal
of Statist. Soc._ vol. xviii. p. 152.
[137] Respecting the working of this in England, there are some shrewd
remarks made by Le Blanc in his _Lettres d'un François_, vol. i.
pp. 267, 268; which may be compared with _Lord Holland's Mem. of
the Whig Party_, vol. ii. p. 253, where it is suggested, that in
the case of complete emancipation of the Catholics, 'eligibility
to worldly honours and profits would somewhat abate the fever of
religious zeal.' On this, there are observations worth attending
to in _Lord Cloncurry's Recollections_, Dublin, 1849, pp. 342,
343.
These generalizations, which account for a great part of the present
superstition of the Irish Catholics, will also account for the former
superstition of the French Protestants. In both cases, the government
disdaining the supervision of an heretical religion, allowed supreme
authority to fall into the hands of the priesthood, who stimulated the
bigotry of men, and encouraged them in a hatred of their opponents.
What the results of this are in Ireland, is best known to those of our
statesmen, who, with unusual candour, have declared Ireland to be their
greatest difficulty. What the results were in France, we will now
endeavour to ascertain.
The conciliating spirit of the French government having drawn over to
its side some of the most eminent of the French Protestants, and having
disarmed the hostility of others, the leadership of the party fell, as
we have already seen, into the hands of those inferior men, who
displayed in their new position the intolerance characteristic of their
order. Without pretending to write a history of the odious feuds that
now arose, I will lay before the reader some evidence of their
increasing bitterness; and I will point out a few of the steps by which
the angry feelings of religious controversy became so inflamed, that at
length they kindled a civil war, which nothing but the improved temper
of the Catholics prevented from being as sanguinary as were the horrible
struggles of the sixteenth century. For, when the French Protestants
became governed by men whose professional habits made them consider
heresy to be the greatest of crimes, there naturally sprung up a
missionary and proselytizing spirit, which induced them to interfere
with the religion of the Catholics, and, under the old pretence of
turning them from the error of their ways, revived those animosities
which the progress of knowledge tended to appease. And as, under such
guidance, these feelings quickly increased, the Protestants soon learned
to despise that great Edict of Nantes, by which their liberties were
secured; and they embarked in a dangerous contest, in which their object
was, not to protect their own religion, but to weaken the religion of
that very party to whom they owed a toleration, which had been
reluctantly conceded by the prejudices of the age.
It was stipulated, in the Edict of Nantes, that the Protestants should
enjoy the full exercise of their religion; and this right they continued
to possess until the reign of Louis XIV. To this there were added
several other privileges, such as no Catholic Government, except that
of France, would then have granted to its heretical subjects. But these
things did not satisfy the desires of the Protestant clergy. They were
not content to exercise their own religion, unless they could also
trouble the religion of others. Their first step was, to call upon the
government to limit the performance of those rites which the French
Catholics had long revered as emblems of the national faith. For this
purpose, directly after the death of Henry IV. they held a great
assembly at Saumur, in which they formally demanded that no Catholic
processions should be allowed in any town, place, or castle occupied by
the Protestants.[138] As the government did not seem inclined to
countenance this monstrous pretension, these intolerant sectaries took
the law into their own hands. They not only attacked the Catholic
processions wherever they met them, but they subjected the priests to
personal insults, and even endeavoured to prevent them from
administering the sacrament to the sick. If a Catholic clergyman was
engaged in burying the dead, the Protestants were sure to be present,
interrupting the funeral, turning the ceremonies into ridicule, and
attempting, by their clamour, to deaden the voice of the minister, so
that the service performed in the church should not be heard.[139] Nor
did they always confine themselves even to such demonstrations as these.
For, certain towns having been, perhaps imprudently, placed under their
control, they exercised their authority in them with the most wanton
insolence. At La Rochelle, which for importance was the second city in
the kingdom, they would not permit the Catholics to have even a single
church in which to celebrate what for centuries had been the sole
religion of France, and was still the religion of an enormous majority
of Frenchmen.[140] This, however, only formed part of a system, by which
the Protestant clergy hoped to trample on the rights of their
fellow-subjects. In 1619, they ordered in their general assembly at
Loudun, that in none of the Protestant towns should there be a sermon
preached by a Jesuit, or indeed by any ecclesiastical person
commissioned by a bishop.[141] In another assembly, they forbade any
Protestant even to be present at a baptism, or at a marriage, or at a
funeral, if the ceremony was performed by a Catholic priest.[142] And,
as if to cut off all hope of reconciliation, they not only vehemently
opposed those intermarriages between the two parties, by which, in every
Christian country, religious animosities have been softened, but they
publicly declared, that they would withhold the sacrament from any
parents whose children were married into a Catholic family.[143] Not,
however, to accumulate unnecessary evidence, there is one other
circumstance worth relating, as a proof of the spirit with which these
and similar regulations were enforced. When Louis XIII., in 1620,
visited Pau, he was not only treated with indignity, as being an
heretical prince, but he found that the Protestants had not left him a
single church, not one place, in which the king of France, in his own
territory, could perform those devotions which he believed necessary
for his future salvation.[144]
[138] 'Les processions catholiques seraient interdites dans toutes les
places, villes et châteaux occupés par ceux de la religion.'
_Capefigue's Richelieu_, vol. i. p. 39.
[139] Of these facts we have the most unequivocal proof; for they were
not only stated by the Catholics in 1623, but they are recorded,
without being denied, by the Protestant historian Benoist: 'On y
accusoit les Réformez d'injurier les prêtres, quand ils les
voyoient passer; d'empêcher les processions des Catholiques;
l'administration des sacremens aux malades; l'enterrement des
morts avec les cérémonies accoutumées; ... que les Réformez
s'étoient emparez des cloches en quelques lieux, et en d'autres
se serroient de celles des Catholiques pour avertir de l'heure du
prêche; qu'ils affectoient de faire du bruit autour des églises
pendant le service; qu'ils tournoient en dérision les cérémonies
de l'église romaine.' _Benoist_, _Hist. de l'Edit de Nantes_,
vol. ii. pp. 433, 434; see also pp. 149, 150.
[140] 'On pouvait dire que La Rochelle était la capitale, le saint
temple du calvinisme; car on ne voyait là aucune église, aucune
cérémonie papiste.' _Capefigue's Richelieu_, vol. i. p. 342.
[141] _Mém. de Richelieu_, vol. ii. p. 100. For other and similar
evidence, see _Duplessis Mornay_, _Mémoires_, vol. xi. p. 244;
_Sully_, _[OE]conomies Royales_, vol. vii. p. 164; _Benoist_,
_Hist. de l'Edit de Nantes_, vol. ii. pp. 70, 233, 279.
[142] _Quick's Synodicon in Gallia_, vol. ii. p. 196.
[143] For a striking instance of the actual enforcement of this
intolerant regulation, see _Quick's Synodicon in Gallia_,
vol. ii. p. 344.
[144] _Bazin_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. ii. p. 124; _Mém. de
Richelieu_, vol. ii. pp. 109, 110; _Felice's Hist. of the
Protestants of France_, p. 238.
This was the way in which the French Protestants, influenced by their
new leaders, treated the first Catholic government which abstained from
persecuting them; the first which not only allowed them the free
exercise of their religion, but even advanced many of them to offices of
trust and of honour.[145] All this, however, was only of a piece with
the rest of their conduct. They, who in numbers and in intellect formed
a miserable minority of the French nation, claimed a power which the
majority had abandoned, and refused to concede to others the toleration
they themselves enjoyed. Several persons, who had joined their party,
now quitted it, and returned to the Catholic church; but for exercising
this undoubted right, they were insulted by the Protestant clergy in the
grossest manner, with every term of opprobrium and abuse.[146] For those
who resisted their authority, no treatment was considered too severe. In
1612, Ferrier, a man of some reputation in his own day, having disobeyed
their injunctions, was ordered to appear before one of their synods. The
gist of his offence was, that he had spoken contemptuously of
ecclesiastical assemblies; and to this there were, of course, added
those accusations against his moral conduct, with which theologians
often attempt to blacken the character of their opponents.[147] Readers
of ecclesiastical history are too familiar with such charges to attach
any importance to them; but as, in this case, the accused was tried by
men who were at once his prosecutors, his enemies, and his judges, the
result was easy to anticipate. In 1613 Ferrier was excommunicated, and
the excommunication was publicly proclaimed in the church of Nîmes. In
this sentence, which is still extant, he is declared by the clergy to be
'a scandalous man, a person incorrigible, impenitent and ungovernable.'
We, therefore, they add, 'in the name and power of our Lord Jesus
Christ, by the conduct of the Holy Ghost, and with authority from the
church, have cast, and do now cast and throw him out of the society of
the faithful, that he may be delivered up unto Satan.'[148]
[145] In 1625, Howell writes that the Protestants had put up an
inscription on the gates of Montauban, 'Roy sans foy, ville sans
peur.' _Howell's Letters_, p. 178.
[146] Sometimes they were called dogs returning to the vomit of popery;
sometimes they were swine wallowing in the mire of idolatry.
_Quick's Synodicon in Gallia_, vol. i. pp. 385, 398.
[147] It is observable, that on the first occasion (_Quick's Synodicon_,
vol. i. p. 362) nothing is said of Ferrier's immorality; and on
the next occasion (p. 449) the synod complains, among other
things, that 'he hath most licentiously inveighed against, and
satirically lampooned, the ecclesiastical assemblies.'
[148] See this frightful and impious document, in _Quick's Synodicon_,
vol. i. pp. 448, 450.
That he may be delivered up unto Satan! This was the penalty which a
handful of clergymen, in a corner of France, thought they could inflict
on a man who dared to despise their authority. In our time such an
anathema would only excite derision;[149] but, early in the seventeenth
century, the open promulgation of it was enough to ruin any private
person against whom it might be directed. And they whose studies have
enabled them to take the measure of the ecclesiastical spirit will
easily believe that, in that age, the threat did not remain a dead
letter. The people, inflamed by their clergy, rose against Ferrier,
attacked his family, destroyed his property, sacked and gutted his
houses, and demanded with loud cries, that the 'traitor Judas' should be
given up to them. The unhappy man, with the greatest difficulty,
effected his escape; but though he saved his life by flying in the dead
of the night, he was obliged to abandon for ever his native town, as he
dared not return to a place where he had provoked so active and so
implacable a party.[150]
[149] The notion of theologians respecting excommunication may be seen
in Mr. Palmer's entertaining book, _Treatise on the Church_, vol.
i. pp. 64, 67, vol. ii. pp. 299, 300; but the opinions of this
engaging writer should be contrasted with the indignant language
of Vattel, _Le Droit des Gens_, vol. i. pp. 177, 178. In England,
the terrors of excommunication fell into contempt towards the end
of the seventeenth century. See _Life of Archbishop Sharpe_,
edited by Newcome, vol. i. p. 216: compare p. 363; and see the
mournful remarks of Dr. Mosheim, in his _Eccles. Hist._ vol. ii.
p. 79; and _Sir Philip Warwick's Memoirs_, pp. 175, 176.
[150] On the treatment of Ferrier, which excited great attention as
indicating the extreme lengths to which the Protestants were
prepared to go, see _Mém. de Richelieu_, vol. i. p. 177; _Mém. de
Pontchartrain_, vol. ii. pp. 5, 6, 12, 29, 32; _Mém. de Duplessis
Mornay_, vol. xii. pp. 317, 333, 341, 350, 389, 399, 430;
_Felice's Hist. of the Protestants of France_, p. 235; _Biog.
Univ._ vol. xiv. p. 440; _Tallemant des Réaux_, _Historiettes_,
vol. v. pp. 48-54. Mr. Smedley, who refers to none of these
authorities, except two passages in Duplessis, has given a
garbled account of this riot. See his _History of the Reformed
Religion in France_, vol. iii. pp. 119, 120.
Into other matters, and even into those connected with the ordinary
functions of government, the Protestants carried the same spirit.
Although they formed so small a section of the people, they attempted to
control the administration of the crown, and, by the use of threats,
turn all its acts to their own favour. They would not allow the state to
determine what ecclesiastical councils it should recognize; they would
not even permit the king to choose his own wife. In 1615, without the
least pretence of complaint, they assembled in large numbers at Grenoble
and at Nîmes.[151] The deputies of Grenoble insisted that government
should refuse to acknowledge the Council of Trent;[152] and both
assemblies ordered that the Protestants should prevent the marriage of
Louis XIII. with a Spanish princess.[153] They laid similar claims to
interfere with the disposal of civil and military offices. Shortly after
the death of Henry IV., they, in an assembly at Saumur, insisted that
Sully should be restored to some posts from which, in their opinion, he
had been unjustly removed.[154] In 1619, another of their assemblies at
London declared, that as one of the Protestant councillors of the
Parliament of Paris had become a Catholic, he must be dismissed; and
they demanded that, for the same reason, the government of Lectoure
should be taken from Fontrailles, he also having adopted the not
infrequent example of abandoning his sect in order to adopt a creed
sanctioned by the state.[155]
[151] _Capefigue's Richelieu_, vol. i. p. 123.
[152] _Capefigue_, vol. i. p. 123; _Bazin_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_,
vol. i. p. 364; _Benoist_, _Hist. de l'Edit de Nantes_, vol. ii.
p. 183; _Mém. de Rohan_, vol. i. p. 130.
[153] _Capefigue's Richelieu_, vol. i. p. 124; _Mém. de Pontchartrain_,
vol. ii. p. 100; _Le Vassor_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. ii. pp.
333, 334. The consequence was, that the king was obliged to send
a powerful escort to protect his bride against his Protestant
subjects. _Mém. de Richelieu_, vol. i. p. 274.
[154] _Capefigue's Richelieu_, vol. i. p. 38; _Benoist_, _Hist. de
l'Edit de Nantes_, vol. ii. pp. 28, 29, 63.
[155] _Mém. de Fontenay Mareuil_, vol. i. p. 450; _Mém. de
Bassompierre_, vol. ii. p. 161. See a similar instance, in the
case of Berger, in _Benoist_, _Hist. de l'Edit de Nantes_, vol.
ii. p. 136, whom the Protestants sought to deprive because 'il
avoit quitté leur religion.'
By way of aiding all this, and with the view of exasperating still
further religious animosities, the principal Protestant clergy put forth
a series of works, which, for bitterness of feeling, have hardly ever
been equalled, and which it would certainly be impossible to surpass.
The intense hatred with which they regarded their Catholic countrymen
can only be fully estimated by those who have looked into the pamphlets
written by the French Protestants during the first half of the
seventeenth century, or who have read the laboured and formal treatises
of such men as Chamier, Drelincourt, Moulin, Thomson, and Vignier.
Without, however, pausing on these, it will perhaps be thought
sufficient if, for the sake of brevity, I follow the mere outline of
political events. Great numbers of the Protestants had joined in the
rebellion which, in 1615, was raised by Condé;[156] and, although they
were then easily defeated, they seemed bent on trying the issue of a
fresh struggle. In Béarn, where they were unusually numerous,[157] they,
even during the reign of Henry IV., had refused to tolerate the Catholic
religion; 'their fanatical clergy,' says the historian of France,
'declaring that it would be a crime to permit the idolatry of the
mass.'[158] This charitable maxim they for many years actively enforced,
seizing the property of the Catholic clergy, and employing it in support
of their own churches;[159] so that, while in one part of the dominions
of the king of France the Protestants were allowed to exercise their
religion, they, in another part of his dominions, prevented the
Catholics from exercising theirs. It was hardly to be expected that any
government would suffer such an anomaly as this; and, in 1618, it was
ordered that the Protestants should restore the plunder, and reinstate
the Catholics in their former possessions. But the reformed clergy,
alarmed at so sacrilegious a proposal, appointed a public fast, and
inspiriting the people to resistance, forced the royal commissioner to
fly from Pau, where he had arrived in the hope of effecting a peaceful
adjustment of the claims of the rival parties.[160]
[156] _Bazin_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. i. p. 381. Sismondi (_Hist.
des Français_, vol. xxii. p. 349) says that they had no good
reason for this; and it is certain that their privileges, so far
from being diminished since the Edict of Nantes, had been
confirmed and extended.
[157] M. Felice (_Hist. of the Protestants of France_, p. 237) says of
Lower Navarre and Béarn, in 1617: 'Three-fourths of the
population, some say nine-tenths, belonged to the reformed
communion.' This is perhaps overestimated; but we know, from De
Thou, that they formed a majority in Béarn in 1566: 'Les
Protestans y fussent en plus grand nombre que les Catholiques.'
_De Thou_, _Hist. Univ._ vol. v. p. 187.
[158] 'Les ministres fanatiques déclaroient qu'ils ne pouvaient sans
crime souffrir dans ce pays régénéré l'idolâtrie de la messe.'
_Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. xxii. p. 415.
[159] _Notice sur les Mémoires de Rohan_, vol. i. p. 26. Compare the
account given by Pontchartrain, who was one of the ministers of
Louis XIII. _Mém. de Pontchartrain_, vol. ii. pp. 248, 264; and
see _Mém. de Richelieu_, vol. i. p. 443.
[160] _Bazin_, _Hist. de France sous Louis XIII_, vol. ii. pp. 62-64.
The pith of the question was, that 'l'édit de Nantes ayant donné
pouvoir, tant aux catholiques qu'aux huguenots, de rentrer
partout dans leurs biens, les ecclésiastiques de Béarn
démanderent aussytôt les leurs.' _Mém. de Fontenay Mareuil_, vol.
i. p. 392.
The rebellion thus raised by the zeal of the Protestants, was soon put
down; but, according to the confession of Rohan, one of the ablest of
their leaders, it was the beginning of all their misfortunes.[161] The
sword had now been drawn; and the only question to be decided was,
whether France should be governed according to the principles of
toleration recently established, or according to the maxims of a
despotic sect, which, while professing to advocate the right of private
judgment, was acting in a way that rendered all private judgment
impossible.
[161] 'L'affaire de Béarn, source de tous nos maux.' _Mém. de Rohan_,
vol. i. p. 156; see also p. 183. And the Protestant Le Vassor
says (_Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. iii. p. 634): 'L'affaire du
Béarn et l'assemblée qui se convoqua ensuite à la Rochelle, sont
la source véritable des malheurs des églises réformées de France
sous le règne dont j'écris l'histoire.'
Scarcely was the war in Béarn brought to an end, when the Protestants
determined on making a great effort in the west of France.[162] The seat
of this new struggle was Rochelle, which was one of the strongest
fortresses in Europe, and was entirely in the hands of the
Protestants,[163] who had grown wealthy, partly by their own industry
and partly by following the occupation of public pirates.[164] In this
city, which they believed to be impregnable,[165] they, in December,
1620, held a Great Assembly, to which their spiritual chiefs flocked
from all parts of France. It was soon evident that their party was now
governed by men who were bent on the most violent measures. Their great
secular leaders were, as we have already seen, gradually falling off;
and, by this time, there only remained two of much ability, Rohan and
Mornay, both of whom saw the inexpediency of their proceedings, and
desired that the assembly should peaceably separate.[166] But the
authority of the clergy was irresistible; and, by their prayers and
exhortations, they easily gained over the ordinary citizens, who were
then a gross and uneducated body.[167] Under their influence, the
Assembly adopted a course which rendered civil war inevitable. Their
first act was an edict, by which they at once confiscated all the
property belonging to Catholic churches.[168] They then caused a great
seal to be struck; under the authority of which they ordered that the
people should be armed, and taxes collected from them for the purpose of
defending their religion.[169] Finally, they drew up the regulations,
and organized the establishment of what they called the Reformed
Churches of France and of Béarn; and, with a view to facilitate the
exercise of their spiritual jurisdiction, they parcelled out France into
eight circles, to each of which there was allotted a separate general,
who, however, was to be accompanied by a clergyman, since the
administration, in all its parts, was held responsible to that
ecclesiastical assembly which called it into existence.[170]
[162] On the connexion between the proceedings of Béarn and those of
Rochelle, compare _Mém. de Montglat_, vol. i. p. 33, with _Mém.
de Richelieu_, vol. ii. p. 113, and _Mém. de Rohan_, vol. i. p.
446.
[163] Their first church was established in 1556 (_Ranke's Civil Wars in
France_, vol. i. p. 360); but, by the reign of Charles IX. the
majority of the inhabitants were Protestants. See _De Thou_,
_Hist. Univ._ vol. iv. p. 263, vol. v. p. 379, ad. ann. 1562 and
1567.
[164] Or, as M. Capefigue courteously puts it, 'les Rochelois ne
respectaient pas toujours les pavillons amis.' _Capefigue's
Richelieu_, vol. i. p. 332. A delicate circumlocution, unknown to
Mezeray who says (_Hist. de France_, vol. iii. p. 426) in 1587:
'et les Rochelois, qui par le moyen du commerce et de la
_piraterie_,' &c.
[165] 'Ceste place, que les huguenots tenoient quasy pour imprenable.'
_Mém. de Fontenay Mareuil_, vol. i. p. 512. 'Cette orgueilleuse
cité, qui se croyoit imprenable.' _Mém. de Montglat_, vol. i. p.
45. Howell, who visited Rochelle in 1620 and 1622, was greatly
struck by its strength. _Howell's Letters_, pp. 46, 47, 108. At
p. 204, he calls it, in his barbarous style, 'the chiefest
propugnacle of the Protestants there.' For a description of the
defences of Rochelle, see _De Thou_, _Hist. Univ._ vol. vi. pp.
615-617; and some details worth consulting in _Mezeray_, _Hist.
de France_, vol. ii. pp. 977-980.
[166] _Bazin_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. ii. p. 139; _Sismondi, Hist.
des Français_, vol. xxii. pp. 480, 481. Rohan himself says
(_Mém._ vol. i. p. 446): 'je m'efforçai de la séparer.' In a
remarkable letter, which Mornay wrote ten years before this, he
shows his apprehensions of the evil that would result from the
increasing violence of his party; and he advises, 'que nostre
zèle soit tempéré de prudence.' _Mém. et Correspond._ vol. xi. p.
122; and as to the divisions this caused among the Protestants,
see pp. 154, 510, vol. xii. pp. 82, 255; and _Sully_,
_[OE]conomies Royales_, vol. ix. pp. 350, 435.
[167] 'Les seigneurs du parti, et surtout le sage Duplessis Mornay,
firent ce qu'ils purent pour engager les réformés à ne pas
provoquer l'autorité royale pour des causes qui ne pouvoient
justifier une guerre civile; mais le pouvoir dans le parti avoit
passé presque absolument aux bourgeois des villes et aux
ministres qui se livroient aveuglement à leur fanatisme, et à
leur orgueil, et qui étoient d'autant plus applaudis qu'ils
montroient plus de violence.' _Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_,
vol. xxii. p. 478.
[168] 'On confisqua les biens des églises catholiques.' _Lavallée des
Français_, vol. iii. p. 85: and see _Capefigue's Richelieu_,
vol. i. p. 258.
[169] 'Ils donnent des commissions d'armer et de faire des impositions
sur le peuple, et ce sous leur grand sceau, qui étoit une
Religion appuyée sur une croix, ayant en la main un livre de
l'évangile, foulant aux pieds un vieux squelette, qu'ils disoient
être l'église romaine.' _Mém. de Richelieu_, vol. ii. p. 120. M.
Capefigue (_Richelieu_, vol. i. p. 259) says that this seal still
exists; but it is not even alluded to by a late writer (_Felice_,
_Hist. of the Protestants of France_, p. 240), who systematically
suppresses every fact unfavourable to his own party.
[170] _Le Vassor_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. iv. p. 157; _Bazin_,
_Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. ii. p. 145; _Benoist_, _Hist. de
l'Edit de Nantes_, vol. ii. pp. 353-355; _Capefigue's Richelieu_,
vol. i. p. 258.
Such were the forms and pomp of authority assumed by the spiritual
leaders of the French Protestants; men by nature destined to obscurity,
and whose abilities were so despicable, that, notwithstanding their
temporary importance, they have left no name in history. These
insignificant priests, who, at the best, were only fit to mount the
pulpit of a country village, now arrogated to themselves the right of
ordering the affairs of France, imposing taxes upon Frenchmen,
confiscating property, raising troops, levying war; and all this for the
sake of propagating a creed, which was scouted by the country at large
as a foul and mischievous heresy.
In the face of these inordinate pretensions, it was evident that the
French government had no choice, except to abdicate its functions, or
else take arms in its own defence.[171] Whatever may be the popular
notion respecting the necessary intolerance of the Catholics, it is an
indisputable fact, that, early in the seventeenth century, they
displayed in France a spirit of forbearance, and a Christian charity, to
which the Protestants could make no pretence. During the twenty-two
years which elapsed between the Edict of Nantes and the Assembly of
Rochelle, the government, notwithstanding repeated provocations, never
attacked the Protestants;[172] nor did they make any attempt to destroy
the privileges of a sect, which they were bound to consider heretical,
and the extirpation of which had been deemed by their fathers to be one
of the first duties of a Christian statesman.
[171] Even Mosheim, who, as a Protestant, was naturally prejudiced in
favour of the Huguenots, says, that they had established
'imperium in imperio;' and he ascribes to the violence of their
rulers the war of 1621. _Mosheim's Eccles. Hist._ vol. ii.
pp. 237, 238.
[172] Compare _Mém. de Fontenay Mareuil_, vol. ii. p. 88, with
_Flassan_, _Hist. de la Diplomatie Française_, vol. ii. p. 351.
The war that now broke out lasted seven years, and was uninterrupted,
except by the short peace, first of Montpelier, and afterwards of
Rochelle; neither of which, however, was very strictly preserved. But
the difference in the views and intentions of the two parties
corresponded to the difference between the classes which governed them.
The Protestants, being influenced mainly by the clergy, made their
object religious domination. The Catholics being led by statesmen, aimed
at temporal advantages. Thus it was, that circumstances had in France so
completely obliterated the original tendency of these two great sects,
that, by a singular metamorphosis, the secular principle was now
represented by the Catholics, and the theological principle by the
Protestants. The authority of the clergy, and therefore the interests of
superstition, were upheld by that very party which owed its origin to
the diminution of both; they were, on the other hand, attacked by a
party whose success had hitherto depended on the increase of both. If
the Catholics triumphed, the ecclesiastical power would be weakened; if
the Protestants triumphed, it would be strengthened. Of this fact, so
far as the Protestants are concerned, I have just given ample proof,
collected from their proceedings, and from the language of their own
synods. And that the opposite, or secular principle, predominated among
the Catholics, is evident, not only from their undeviating policy in the
reigns of Henry IV. and Louis XIII., but also from another circumstance
worthy of note. For, their motives were so obvious, and gave such
scandal to the church, that the pope, as the great protector of
religion, thought himself bound to reprehend that disregard of
theological interests which they displayed, and which he considered to
be a crying and unpardonable offence. In 1622, only one year after the
struggle between the Protestants and Catholics had begun, he strongly
remonstrated with the French government upon the notorious indecency of
which they were guilty, in carrying on war against heretics, not for the
purpose of suppressing the heresy, but merely with a view of procuring
for the state those temporal advantages which, in the opinion of all
pious men, ought to be regarded as of subordinate importance.[173]
[173] See the paper of instructions from Pope Gregory XV. in the
appendix to _Ranke_, _die Röm. Päpste_, vol. iii. pp. 173, 174:
'Die Hauptsache aber ist was er dem Könige von Frankreich
vorstellen soll: 1, dass er ja nicht den Verdacht auf sich laden
werde als verfolge er die Protestanten bloss aus
Staatsinteresse.' Bazin (_Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. ii. p. 320)
says, that Richelieu attacked the Huguenots 'sans aucune idée de
persécution religieuse.' See, to the same effect, _Capefigue's
Richelieu_, vol. i. p. 274; and the candid admissions of the
Protestant Le Vassor, in his _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. v.
p. 11.
If, at this juncture, the Protestants had carried the day, the loss to
France would have been immense, perhaps irreparable. For no one, who is
acquainted with the temper and character of the French Calvinists, can
doubt, that if they had obtained possession of the government, they
would have revived those religious persecutions which, so far as their
power extended, they had already attempted to enforce. Not only in their
writings, but even in the edicts of their assemblies, we find ample
proof of that meddling and intolerant spirit which, in every age, has
characterized ecclesiastical legislation. Indeed, such a spirit is the
legitimate consequence of the fundamental assumption from which
theological lawgivers usually start. The clergy are taught to consider
that their paramount duty is to preserve the purity of the faith, and
guard it against the invasions of heresy. Whenever, therefore, they rise
to power, it almost invariably happens, that they carry into politics
the habits they have contracted in their profession; and having long
been accustomed to consider religious error as criminal, they now
naturally attempt to make it penal. And as all the European countries
have, in the period of their ignorance, been once ruled by the clergy,
just so do we find in the law-books of every land those traces of their
power which the progress of knowledge is gradually effacing. We find the
professors of the dominant creed enacting laws against the professors of
other creeds: laws sometimes to burn them, sometimes to exile them,
sometimes to take away their civil rights, sometimes only to take away
their political rights. These are the different gradations through which
persecution passes; and by observing which, we may measure, in any
country, the energy of the ecclesiastical spirit. At the same time, the
theory by which such measures are supported generally gives rise to
other measures of a somewhat different, though of an analogous
character. For, by extending the authority of law to opinions as well as
to acts, the basis of legislation becomes dangerously enlarged; the
individuality and independence of each man are invaded; and
encouragement is given to the enactment of intrusive and vexatious
regulations, which are supposed to perform for morals the service that
the other class of laws performs for religion. Under pretence of
favouring the practice of virtue, and maintaining the purity of society,
men are troubled in their most ordinary pursuits, in the commonest
occurrences of life, in their amusements, nay, even in the very dress
they may be inclined to wear. That this is what has actually been done,
must be known to whoever has looked into the writings of the fathers,
into the canons of Christian councils, into the different systems of
ecclesiastical law, or into the sermons of the earlier clergy. Indeed,
all this is so natural, that regulations, conceived in the same spirit,
were drawn up for the government of Geneva by the Calvinist clergy, and
for the government of England by Archbishop Cranmer and his coadjutors;
while a tendency, precisely identical, may be observed in the
legislation of the Puritans, and to give a still later instance, in that
of the Methodists. It is, therefore, not surprising that, in France, the
Protestant clergy, having great power among their own party, should
enforce a similar discipline. Thus, to mention only a few examples,
they forbade any one to go to a theatre, or even to witness the
performance of private theatricals.[174] They looked upon dancing as an
ungodly amusement, and, therefore, they not only strictly prohibited it,
but they ordered that all dancing-masters should be admonished
by the spiritual power, and desired to abandon so unchristian a
profession. If, however, the admonition failed in effecting its
purpose, the dancing-masters, thus remaining obdurate, were to be
excommunicated.[175] With the same pious care did the clergy superintend
other matters equally important. In one of their synods, they ordered
that all persons should abstain from wearing gay apparel, and should
arrange their hair with becoming modesty.[176] In another synod, they
forbade women to paint; and they declared that if, after this
injunction, any woman persisted in painting, she should not be allowed
to receive the sacrament.[177] To their own clergy, as the instructors
and shepherds of the flock, there was paid an attention still more
scrupulous. The ministers of the Word were permitted to teach Hebrew,
because Hebrew is a sacred dialect, uncontaminated by profane writers.
But the Greek language, which contains all the philosophy and nearly all
the wisdom of antiquity, was to be discouraged, its study laid aside,
its professorship suppressed.[178] And, in order that the mind might not
be distracted from spiritual things, the study of chemistry was likewise
forbidden; such a mere earthly pursuit being incompatible with the
habits of the sacred profession.[179] Lest, however, in spite of these
precautions, knowledge should still creep in among the Protestants,
other measures were taken to prevent even its earliest approach. The
clergy, entirely forgetting that right of private judgment upon which
their sect was founded, became so anxious to protect the unwary from
error, that they forbade any person to print or publish a work without
the sanction of the church; in other words, without the sanction of the
clergy themselves.[180] When, by these means, they had destroyed the
possibility of free inquiry, and, so far as they were able, had put a
stop to the acquisition of all real knowledge, they proceeded to guard
against another circumstance to which their measures had given rise.
For, several of the Protestants, seeing that under such a system, it was
impossible to educate their families with advantage, sent their children
to some of those celebrated Catholic colleges, where alone a sound
education could then be obtained. But the clergy, so soon as they heard
of this practice, put an end to it, by excommunicating the offending
parents;[181] and to this there was added an order forbidding them to
admit into their own private houses any tutor who professed the Catholic
religion.[182] Such was the way in which the French Protestants were
watched over and protected by their spiritual masters. Even the minutest
matters were not beneath the notice of these great legislators. They
ordered that no person should go to a ball or masquerade;[183] nor ought
any Christian to look at the tricks of conjurors, or at the famous game
of goblets, or at the puppet-show; neither was he to be present at
morris-dances; for all such amusements should be suppressed by the
magistrates, because they excite curiosity, cause expense, waste
time.[184] Another thing to be attended to, is the names that are
bestowed in baptism. A child may have two christian names, though one is
preferable.[185] Great care, however, is to be observed in their
selection. They ought to be taken from the Bible, but they ought not to
be Baptist or Angel; neither should any infant receive a name which has
been formerly used by the Pagans.[186] When the children are grown up,
there are other regulations to which they must be subject. The clergy
declared that the faithful must by no means let their hair grow long,
lest by so doing they indulge in the luxury of 'lascivious curls.'[187]
They are to make their garments in such a manner as to avoid 'the
new-fangled fashions of the world:' they are to have no tassels to their
dress: their gloves must be without silk and ribbons: they are to
abstain from fardingales: they are to beware of wide sleeves.[188]
[174] _Quick's Synodicon in Gallia_, vol. i. p. 62.
[175] _Ibid._ vol. i. pp. lvii. 17, 131, vol. ii. p. 174.
[176] 'And both sexes are required to keep modesty in their hair,' &c.
_Ibid._ vol. i. p. 119.
[177] _Quick's Synodicon_, vol. i. p. 165.
[178] The synod of Alez, in 1620, says, 'A minister may at the same time
be professor in divinity and of the Hebrew tongue. But it is not
seemly for him to profess the Greek also, because the most of his
employment will be taken up in the exposition of Pagan and
profane authors, unless he be discharged from the ministry.'
_Quick's Synodicon_, vol. ii. p. 57. Three years later, the synod
of Charenton suppressed altogether the Greek professorships, 'as
being superfluous and of small profit.' _Ibid._ vol. ii. p. 115.
[179] The synod of St. Maixant, in 1609, orders that 'colloquies and
synods shall have a watchful eye over those ministers who study
chemistry, and grievously reprove and censure them.' _Ibid._ vol.
i. p. 314.
[180] _Ibid._ vol. i. pp. 140, 194, vol. ii. p. 110.
[181] _Quick's Synodicon_, vol. i. pp. lv. 235, 419, vol. ii. pp. 201,
509, 515. Compare _Benoist_, _Hist. de l'Edit de Nantes_, vol. ii.
p. 473.
[182] _Quick's Synodicon_, vol. ii. p. 81.
[183] _Ibid._ vol. ii. p. 174.
[184] 'All Christian magistrates are advised not in the least to suffer
them, because it feeds foolish curiosity, puts upon unnecessary
expenses, and wastes time,' _Ibid._ vol. i. p. 194.
[185] This was a very knotty question for the theologians; but it was at
length decided in the affirmative by the synod of Saumur: 'On the
13th article of the same chapter, the deputies of Poicton
demanded, whether two names might be given a child at baptism? To
which it was replied: The thing was indifferent; however, parents
were advised to observe herein Christian simplicity.' _Ibid._
vol. i. p. 178.
[186] _Ibid._ vol. i. pp. xlvi. 25.
[187] I quote the language of the synod of Castres, in 1626. _Ibid._
vol. ii. p. 174.
[188] _Quick's Synodicon_, vol. i. p. 165, vol. ii. pp. 7, 174, 574,
583. In the same way, the Spanish clergy, early in the present
century, attempted to regulate the dress of women. See _Doblado's
Letters from Spain_, pp. 202-205: a good illustration of the
identity of the ecclesiastical spirit, whether it be Catholic or
Protestant.