How To Make Maps An Introduction To Theory And

Practice Of Cartography Peter Anthamatten

download

https://ebookbell.com/product/how-to-make-maps-an-introduction-
to-theory-and-practice-of-cartography-peter-anthamatten-22126540

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

How To Make Handdrawn Maps A Creative Guide With Tips Tricks And
Projects Helen Cann

https://ebookbell.com/product/how-to-make-handdrawn-maps-a-creative-
guide-with-tips-tricks-and-projects-helen-cann-7026588

How To Make Handdrawn Maps Helen Cann

https://ebookbell.com/product/how-to-make-handdrawn-maps-helen-
cann-58162488

How To Make Handdrawn Maps Helen Cann

https://ebookbell.com/product/how-to-make-handdrawn-maps-helen-
cann-61009494

How To Make Handdrawn Maps Helen Cann

https://ebookbell.com/product/how-to-make-handdrawn-maps-helen-
cann-230271418
Mind Maps How To Improve Memory Writer Smarter Plan Better Think
Faster And Make More Money John S Rhodes

https://ebookbell.com/product/mind-maps-how-to-improve-memory-writer-
smarter-plan-better-think-faster-and-make-more-money-john-s-
rhodes-5032806

To The Ends Of The Earth How The Greatest Maps Were Made Philip Parker

https://ebookbell.com/product/to-the-ends-of-the-earth-how-the-
greatest-maps-were-made-philip-parker-51286002

How To Make 500 To 2000 Per Month In Passive Income From Niche Blogs
Websites With Case Study Make Money Online Altmintcom

https://ebookbell.com/product/how-to-make-500-to-2000-per-month-in-
passive-income-from-niche-blogs-websites-with-case-study-make-money-
online-altmintcom-44908552

How To Make The Best Coffee At Home James Hoffmann

https://ebookbell.com/product/how-to-make-the-best-coffee-at-home-
james-hoffmann-46139982

How To Make Beautiful Buttons Tra Beate Schmitz

https://ebookbell.com/product/how-to-make-beautiful-buttons-tra-beate-
schmitz-46770538
Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content
the extirpation of heresy.[79] But they saw no reason why their
revenues should be wasted in effecting mere temporal benefits; they
considered themselves as the guardians of funds set apart for
spiritual purposes, and they thought it impious that wealth
consecrated by the piety of their ancestors should fall into the
profane hands of secular statesmen. Richelieu, who looked on these
scruples as the artifices of interested men, had taken a very different
view of the relation which the clergy bore to the country.[80] So far
from thinking that the interests of the church were superior to those
of the state, he laid it down as a maxim of policy, that ‘the
reputation of the state was the first consideration.’[81] With such
fearlessness did he carry out this principle, that having convoked at
Nantes a great assembly of the clergy, he compelled them to aid the
government by an extraordinary supply of 6,000,000 francs; and
finding that some of the highest dignitaries had expressed their
discontent at so unusual a step, he laid hands on them also, and to
the amazement of the church, sent into exile not only four of the
bishops, but likewise the two archbishops of Toulouse and of Sens.
[82]

If these things had been done fifty years earlier, they would most
assuredly have proved fatal to the minister who dared to attempt
them. But Richelieu, in these and similar measures, was aided by the
spirit of an age which was beginning to despise its ancient masters.
For this general tendency was now becoming apparent, not only in
literature and in politics, but even in the proceedings of the ordinary
tribunals. The nuncio indignantly complained of the hostility
displayed against ecclesiastics by the French judges; and he said
that, among other shameful things, some clergymen had been hung,
without being first deprived of their spiritual character.[83] On other
occasions, the increasing contempt showed itself in a way well
suited to the coarseness of the prevailing manners. Sourdis, the
archbishop of Bourdeaux, was twice ignominiously beaten; once by
the Duke d'Epernon, and afterwards by the Maréchal de Vitry.[84]
Nor did Richelieu, who usually treated the nobles with such severity,
seem anxious to punish this gross outrage. Indeed, the archbishop
not only received no sympathy, but, a few years later, was
peremptorily ordered by Richelieu to retire to his own diocese; such,
however, was his alarm at the state of affairs, that he fled to
Carpentras, and put himself under the protection of the pope.[85]
This happened in 1641 and nine years earlier, the church had
incurred a still greater scandal. For in 1632, serious disturbances
having arisen in Languedoc, Richelieu did not fear to meet the
difficulty by depriving some of the bishops, and seizing the
temporalities of the others.[86]
The indignation of the clergy may be easily imagined. Such
repeated injuries, even if they had proceeded from a layman, would
have been hard to endure; but they were rendered doubly bitter by
being the work of one of themselves—one who had been nurtured in
the profession against which he turned. This it was which
aggravated the offence, because it seemed to be adding treachery to
insult. It was not a war from without, but it was a treason from
within. It was a bishop who humbled the episcopacy, and a cardinal
who affronted the church.[87] Such, however, was the general
temper of men, that the clergy did not venture to strike an open
blow; but, by means of their partisans, they scattered the most
odious libels against the great minister. They said that he was
unchaste, that he was guilty of open debauchery, and that he held
incestuous commerce with his own niece.[88] They declared that he
had no religion; that he was only a Catholic in name; that he was
the pontiff of the Huguenots; that he was the patriarch of atheists;
[89] and what was worse than all, they even accused him of wishing

to establish a schism in the French church.[90] Happily the time was

now passing away in which the national mind could be moved by
such artifices as these. Still the charges are worth recording,
because they illustrate the tendency of public affairs, and the
bitterness with which the spiritual classes saw the reins of power
falling from their hands. Indeed, all this was so manifest, that in the
last civil war raised against Richelieu, only two years before his
death, the insurgents stated in their proclamation, that one of their
objects was to revive the respect with which the clergy and nobles
had formerly been treated.[91]
The more we study the career of Richelieu, the more prominent
does this antagonism become. Every thing proves that he was
conscious of a great struggle going on between the old ecclesiastical
scheme of government and the new secular scheme; and that he
was determined to put down the old plan, and uphold the new one.
For, not only in his domestic administration, but also in his foreign
policy, do we find the same unprecedented disregard of theological
interests. The House of Austria, particularly its Spanish branch, had
long been respected by all pious men as the faithful ally of the
church; it was looked upon as the scourge of heresy; and its
proceedings against the heretics had won for it a great name in
ecclesiastical history.[92] When, therefore, the French government, in
the reign of Charles IX., made a deliberate attempt to destroy the
Protestants, France naturally established an intimate connexion with
Spain as well as with Rome;[93] and these three great powers were
firmly united, not by a community of temporal interests, but by the
force of a religious compact. This theological confederacy was
afterwards broken up by the personal character of Henry IV.,[94] and
by the growing indifference of the age; but during the minority of
Louis XIII., the queen-regent had in some degree renewed it, and
had attempted to revive the superstitious prejudices upon which it
was based.[95] In all her feelings, she was a zealous Catholic; she
was warmly attached to Spain; and she succeeded in marrying her
son, the young king, to a Spanish princess, and her daughter to a
Spanish prince.[96]
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]
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.
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]
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]
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.
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]

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.
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.
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.
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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.
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]
 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.
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]
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]
Those readers who have not studied the history of ecclesiastical
legislation, will perhaps be surprised to find, that men of gravity,
men who had reached the years of discretion, and were assembled
together in solemn council, should evince such a prying and puerile
spirit; that they should display such miserable and childish imbecility.
But, whoever will take a wider survey of human affairs, will be
inclined to blame, not so much the legislators, as the system of
which the legislators formed a part. For as to the men themselves,
they merely acted after their kind. They only followed the traditions
in which they were bred. By virtue of their profession, they had been
accustomed to hold certain views, and, when they rose to power, it
was natural that they should carry those views into effect; thus
transplanting into the law-book the maxims they had already
preached in the pulpit. Whenever, therefore, we read of meddling,
inquisitive, and vexatious regulations imposed by ecclesiastical
authority, we should remember, that they are but the legitimate
result of the ecclesiastical spirit; and that the way to remedy such
grievances, or to prevent their occurrence, is not by vainly labouring
to change the tendencies of that class from whence they proceed,
but rather by confining the class within its proper limits, by jealously
guarding against its earliest encroachments, by taking every
opportunity of lessening its influence, and finally, when the progress
of society will justify so great a step, by depriving it of that political
and legislative power which, though gradually falling from its hands,
it is, even in the most civilized countries, still allowed in some degree
to retain.
But, setting aside these general considerations, it will, at all
events, be admitted, that I have collected sufficient evidence to
indicate what would have happened to France, if the Protestants had
obtained the upper hand. After the facts which I have brought
forward, no one can possibly doubt, that if such a misfortune had
occurred, the liberal, and, considering the age, the enlightened
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

ebookbell.com