Chapter I (3)

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]