t88ki -: —-— =-; ----—; ; iTii t-~ :'': -///// II sr /////,,////~,,//-,//5-/;1/////'//7///r///// —,r,1 5~/~/;: I i i j7 i,, \j L,4-p i~3% B r —--- , -----— ~ —- ----------— —-1-I-I- -__ —-— = —;;r —:,, —I European Civilizati. Protestantism and Catholicity COMPARED IN THEIR EFFECTS ON THE CIVILIZATION OF EUROPE. BY REV. J. BALMES. SIXTEENTH EDITION. BALTIMORE: PUBLISHED BY JOHN MURPHY & Co. 182 BALTIMORE STREET. ENTERED, according to tne Act of Congress, in the year celgnvten hundred and fifty, by JOHN MURPHY & Co.. in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Maryland. IMC/VM r IVlCC~UC4C~U rC~CHC,,~ M WN IN~ M N IM W rC r ~C~ AUTHOR'S PREFACE. AMONG the many and important evils which have been the necessary result of the profound revolutions of modern times, there appears a good extremely valuable to science, and which will probably have a beneficial influence on the human race,-I mean the love of studies having for their object man and society. The shocks have been so rude, that the earth has, as it were, opened under our feet; and the human mind, which, full of pride and haughtiness, but lately advanced on a triumphal car amid acclamations and cries of victory, has been alarmed and stopped in its career. Absorbed by an important thought, overcome by a profound reflection, it has asked itself, " What am I? whence do I come? what is my destination?" Religious questions have regained their high importance; and when they might have been supposed to have been scattered by the breath of indifference, or almost annihilated by the astonishing development of material interests, by the progress of the natural and exact sciences, by the continually increasing ardour of political debates,-we have seen that, so far from having been stifled by the immense weight which seemed to have overwhelmed them, they have reappeared on a sudden in all their magnitude, in their gigantic form, predominant over society, and reaching from the heavens to the abyss. This disposition of men's minds naturally drew their attention to the religious revolution of the sixteenth century; it was natural that they should ask what this revolution had done to promote the interests o.' humanity. Unhappily, great mistakes have been made in this inquiry. Either because they have looked at the facts through the distorted medium of sectarian prejudice, or because they have only considered them.superficially, men have arrived at the conclusion, that the reformers of the sixteenth century conferred a signal benefit on the nations of Europe, by contributing to the development of science, of the arts, of human liberty, and of every thing which is comprised in the word civilization. What do history and philosophy say on this subject? How has man, either individually or collectively, considered in a religious, social, political, or literary point of view, been benefited by the reform of the sixteenth century? Did Europe, under the exclusive influence of Catholicity, pursue a prosperous career? Did Catholicity impose a single fetter rV PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. on the movements of civilization This is the examination which I propose to make in this work. Every age has its peculiar wants; and it is much to be wished that all Catholic writers were convinced, that the complete examination of these questions is one of the most urgent necessities of the times in which we live. Bellarmine and Bossuet have done what was required for their times; we.ought to do the same for ours I am fully aware of the immense extent of the questions I have adverted to, and I do not flatter myself that I shall be able to elucidate them as they deserve; but, however this may be, I promise to enter on my task with the courage which is inspired by a love of truth; and when my strength shall be exhausted, I shall sit down with tranquillity of mind, in expectation that another, more vigorous than myself, will carry into effect so important an enterprise. PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. THE work of Balmes on the comparative influence of Protestantism and Catholicity on European civilization, which is now presented to the American public, was written in Spanish, and won for the author among his own countrymen a very high reputation. A French edition was published simultaneously with the Spanish, and the work has since been translated into the Italian and English languages, and been widely circulated as one of the most learned productions of the age, and most admirably suited to the exigencies of our times. When Protestantism could no longer maintain its position in the field of theology, compelling its votaries by its endless variations to espouse open infidelity, or to fall back upon the ancient church, it adopted a new mode of defence, in pointing to its pretended achievements as the liberator of the human mind, the friend of civil and religious freedom, the patron of science and the arts; in a word, the active element in all social ameliorations. This is the cherished idea and boasted argument of those who attempt to uphold Protestantism as a system. They claim for it the merit of having freed the intellect of man from a degrading bondage, given a nobler impulse to enterprise and industry, and sown in every direction the seed of national and individual prosperity. Looking at facts superficially, or through the distorted medium of prejudice, they tell us that the reformers ot the 16th century contributed much to the development of science and PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. V the arts, of human liberty, and of every thing which is comprised in the word civilization. To combat this delusion, so well calculated to ensnare the minds of men in this materialistic and utilitarian age, the author undertook the work, a translation of which is here presented to the public. " What do history and philosophy say on this subject? How has man, either individually or collectively, considered in a religious, social, political, or literary point of view, been benefited by the reform of the 16th century? Did Europe, under the exclusive influence of Catholicity, pursue a prosperous career? Did Catholicity impose a single fetter on the movements of civilization?" Such is the important investigation which the author proposed to himself, and it must be admitted that he has accomplished his task with the most brilliant success? Possessed of a penetrating mind, cultivated by profound study and adorned with the most varied erudition, and guided by a fearless love of truth, he traverses the whole Christian era, comparing the gigantic achievements of Catholicity, in curing the evils of mankind, elevating human nature, and diffusing light and happiness, with the results of which Protestantism may boast; and he proves, with the torch of history and philosophy in his hand, that the latter, far from having exerted any beneficial influence upon society, has retarded the great work of civilization which Catholicity commenced, and which was advancing so prosperously under her auspicious guidance. He does not say that nothing has been done for civilization by Protestants; but he asserts and proves that Protestantism has been greatly unfavorable, and even injurious to it. By thus exposing the short-comings, or rather evils of Protestantism, in a social and political point of view, as Bossuet and others had exhibited them under the theological aspect, Balmes has rendered a most important service to Catholic literature. He has supplied the age with a work, which is peculiarly adapted to its wants, and which must command a general attention in the United States. The Catholic, in perusing its pages, will learn to admire still more the glorious character of the faith which he professes: the Protestant, if sircere, will open his eyes to the incompatibility of his principles with the happiness of mankind: while the scholar in general will find in it a vast amount of information, on the most vital and interesting topics, and presented in a style of eloquence seldom equalled. "The reader is requested to bear in mind that the author was a native of Spain, and therefore he must not be surprised to find much that relates more particularly to that country. In fact, the fear that Protestant VI PPREF'ACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. ism might be introduced there seems to have been the motive which induced him to undertake the work. He was evidently a man of strong national as well as religious feeling, and he dreaded its introduction both politically and religiously, as he considered that it would be injurious to his country in both points of view. He thought that it would destroy the national unity, as it certainly did in other countries. "A very interesting part of the work is that where he states the relations of religion and political freedom; shows that Catholicity is by no means adverse to the latter, but, on the contrary, highly favorable to it; and proves by extracts from St. Thomas Aquinas and other great Catholic divines, that they entertained the most enlightened political views On the other hand, he shows that Protestantism was unfavorable to civil liberty, as is evidenced by the fact, that arbitrary power made great progress in various countries of Europe soon after its appearance. The reason of this was, that the moral control of religion being taken away, physical restraint became the more necessary." The author, on this subject, naturally expresses a preference for monarchy, it being a cherished inheritance from his forefathers; but, it will be noticed that the principles which he lays down as essential to a right administration of civil affairs, regard the substance and not the form of government; are as necessary under a republican as under the monarchical system; and, if duly observed, they cannot fail to ensure the happiness of the people. This portion of the volume will be read with peculiar interest in this country, and ought to command an attentive consideration. In preparing this edition of the work from the English translation by Messrs. Hanford and Kershaw, care has been taken to revise the whole of it, to compare it with the original French, aqd to correct the various errors, particularly the mistakes in translation. A biographical notice of the illustrious writer has also been prefixed to the volume, to give the reader an insight into his eminent character, and the valuable services he has rendered to his country and to society at large; BALTIMORE, November 1, 1850. NOTICE OF THE AUTHOR JAMES BALMES was born at Vich, a small city in Catalonia, in Spail, on the 28th of August, 1810. His parents were poor, but noted for their industry and religion, and they took care to train him from his childhood to habits of rigid piety. Every morning, after the holy sacrifice of mass, his mother prostrate before an altar dedicated to St. Thomas of Aquin, implored this illustrious doctor to obtain for her son the gifts of sanctity and knowledge. Her prayers were not disappointed. From seven to ten years of age, Balmes applied himself with great ardor to the study of Latin. The two following years were devoted to a course of rhetoric, and three years more were allotted to philosophy; a ninth year was occupied with the prolegomena of theology. Such was the order of studies in the seminary of Vich. While thus laboring to store his mind with knowledge, Balmes preserved an irreproachable line of conduct. Called to the ecclesiastical state, he submitted readily to the strict discipline which this vocation required, and he was seen nowhere but under the parental roof, at the church, in some religious community, or in the episcopal library. At the age of fourteen he was admitted to a benefice, the revenue of which, though small, enabled him to complete his education. In 1826, he went to the University of Cervera, which at that time was the centre of public instruction in that part of Spain. It numbered four colleges, in all of which an enlightened piety prevailed, affording the young Balmes a most favorable opportunity of developing his rare qualities. Here, the frame and habit of his mind were observable to all, in his deep and animated look, in his grave and modest demeanor, and in his method of study. He would read a few pages over a table, his head resting upon his hands; then, wrapt in his mantle, he would spend a long time in reflection. " The true method of study," he used to say, "is to read little, to select good authors, and to think much. If we confined ourselves to a knowledge of what is contained in books, the sciences would never advance a step. We must learn what others have not known. During ma meditations in the dark, my thoughts ferment, and my brain burns like a boiling cauldron." Devoted to the acquisition of knowledge, he cultivated retirement as a means of facilitating the attainment of his object. His thirst for learn VIII NOTICE OF THE AUTHOR. ing was so intense, that it held him under absolute sway, and he found it necessary at a later period to offer a systematic resistance to its exclusive demands. Pursuing his favorite method of study, Balmes remained four years at the University of Cervera, reading no other works than the Sum of St. Thomas, and the commentaries upon it by Bellarmine, Suarez and Cajetan. If he made any exception from this rule, it was in favor of Chateaubriand's Genie du Christanisme. ":Evry thing," said he, "is to be found in St. Thomas; philosophy, religion, politics: his writings are an inexhaustible mine." Having thus strengthened his mind by a due application to philosophical and theological studies, he proceeded to enlarge his sphere of knowledge by reading a greater variety of authors. In taking up a work, he first looked at the table of contents, and when it suggested an idea or fact which seemed to open before him a new path, he read that part of the volume which developed this idea or fact; the rest was overlooked. In this way, he accumulated a rich store of varied erudition. At the age of twenty-two he knew by memory the tabular contents of an extraordinary number of volumes; he had learned the French language; he spoke and wrote Latin better than his native tongue; and had been admitted successively to the degrees of bachelor and licentiate in theology. The virtues. of his youth, far from having been weakened by these studies, hkad acquired greater strength and maturity. As he approached the solemn period of his ordination, he became still more remarkable for the gravity and modesty of his deportment. He prepared himself for his elevation to the priesthood by a retreat of one hundred days. After his promotion to the sacerdotal dignity, which took place in his native city, he returned to the University of Cervera, where he continued his studies, and performed the duties of assistant professor. Here also he began to manifest his political views; but, always with that discretion and moderation for which the Spanish clergy have been with few exceptions distinguished during then last twenty years. At that period Spain was agitated by two conflicting parties, that of Maria Christina and the other of Don Carlos. Balmes avoided all questions which were rather calculated to encourage the spirit of faction than promote the general interest of the country. In 1835 he evinced this circumspection in a remarkable degree, when the doctorate which had been conferred upon him, required him to deliver an address in honor of the reigning monarch. Maria Christina was then the queen regent, and civil war was about to commence in the mountains of Catalonia; but Balmes performed his task without allusion to politics, and without offending the adherents of either party. After two years of study at Cervera, where he applied himself to theology and law, our author returned to Vich, where he determined to spend four years more in retirement, for the purpose of maturing his character and knowledge. In this solitude, he devoted himself to his NOTICE OF THE AUTHOR. I1 tory, poetry and politics, but principally to mathematics, of which he obtained a professorship in 1837. During al these literary labors, Balmes was actuated by a lively faith; and a sincere, unassuming piety. Religious meditation, intermingled with scientific reflections, was the constant oc cupation of his mind; he did not neglect, however, the exterior practices of devotion. Besides the celebration of the holy sacrifice, he frequently visited the blessed sacrament, and paid his homage to the B. Virgin in some solitary chapel. The Following of Christ, the Sum of the angelic doctor, and the Holy Scriptures, were always in his hands, Pnd he took pleasure in reading the ascetic writers of his own country. In this way did he prepare himself, until the age of thirty, to become one of the most solid and gifted minds of our time, and to act the important part to which he was called by Divine Providence. The first literary effort of Balmes before the public, was a prize essay which he wrote on clerical celibacy. This was soon followed by another production of his pen, entitled " Observations on the Property of the Clergy, in a social, political, and commercial point of view," which was elicited by the clamoring of the revolutionary army under Espartero for the spoliation of the clergy. The learning, philosophy and eloquence of the writer in this work, excited the wonder and admiration of the most distinguished statesmen in the country. Some months after, he )ublished his "Political Considerations on the Condition of Spain," in (vhich he had the courage to defend the rights of both parties in the country, and to suggest means of a conciliatory nature for restoring pub-:ic order and tranquillity. Amidst these political efforts, Balmes did not lay aside his peculiar functions as a minister of God. The edification of the faithful, the religious instruction of youth, and the defence of the faith against the assaults of heresy and rationalism, were constant objects of his attention. During the same year, 1840, he translated and published the Maxims of St. Francis of Sales for every day in the year;" he also composed a species of catechism for the instruction of young persons, which was very extensively circulated. At the same time he undertook the preparation of the present work, in order to counteract the pernicious influence exerted among his countrymen by Guizot's lectures on European civilization, and to neutralize the facilities offered under the regime of Espartero for the success of a Protestant Propagandism in Spain. The occasion and object of this work rendered it expedient that it should be published simultaneously in Spanish and in French, and with this view our author visited France, and afterwards, to extend his observations, passed into England. On his return to Barcelona, towards the close of 1842, Balmes became a collaborator in the editing of the Civilizacion, a monthly periodical of great merit, devoted to literary reviews, and to solid instruction on X NOTICE OF THE AUTHOR. the current topics of the day. His connection with this work lasted only eighteen months. He then commenced a review of his own, entitled the Sociedad, a philosophical, political, and religious journal, which acquired a great reputation (luring the one year of its existence. Driven soon after into retirement by the disturbances of the times, Balmes compose(l another philosophical work, El Criterio, which is a course of logic adapted to every capacity. From the national uprising that overthrew the government of Espartero, there arose a general feeling of patriotic independence, which called for the cessation of civil strife, and the harmonizing of the two parties that divided the nation. Many of the adherents of Maria Christina, who were the nobility and the bourgeoisie, recognized the excesses of the revolutionary faction which they had called to their aid, while the Carlists were not all in favor of absolute monarchy, and numbered an imposing majority among the lower classes. All these men of wise and moderate views longed to see a remedy applied to the wounds of their afflicted country; and with one accord they turned their eyes upon Balmes, as the only individual capable of conducting this important affair. He had already, in his Political Considerations, indicated the principal idea of his policy for putting, an end to the national evils; it was a matrimonial alliance between the Queen and the son of Don Carlos. Under these circumstances he commenced in February, 1844, a new journal, entitled Pensamiento de la JVacion, the object of which was to denounce the revolutionary spirit as the enemy of all just and peaceful government, and to inspire the Spanish people with a proper reverence for the re ligious, social and political inheritance received from their ancestors, and with a due respect for the reasonable ameliorations of the age. In this spirit the different questions of the day were discussed with energy and calmness, and especially the project of an alliance between the Queen and the son of Don Carlos, which Balmes considered of the utmost importance. This measure, such as he proposed it, was, to use the language of his biographer, "the reconciliation of the past and the future, of authority and liberty, of monarchy and representative government." Such was the patriotism, dignity and force, with which our author conducted his hebdomadal, that it won the esteem of a large portion of the most distinguished men among the Carlists, while it also acquired favor among an immense number in the opposite party. To support its views a daily journal, the Conciliador, was started by a body of young but fervidl and brilliant writers, and nothing it would seem was wanting to insure a triumph for the friends of Spain. Prudence, energy, moderation, reason and eloquence, with a majority of the people on their side, deserved and should have commanded success; but they could not prevail against diplomatic influence and court intrigue. Balmes learned with equal surprise and affliction, in the retirement of his native moun NOTICE OF THE AUTHOR. XI tains, that the government had resolved to offer the Queen in marriage to the infant Don Francisco, and the infanta to the Duke of Montpensier This was a severe stroke to the sincere and ardent patriotism of Balmes. He might have resisted this policy with the power and eloquence of his pen, but he preferred a silent resignation to the heat of political strife, and the Pensamniento de la Xacion, although a lucrative publication, was discontinued on the 31st of December, 1846. During that same year, our author collected into one volume his various essays on politics, as well for his own vindication as for the diffusion of sound instruction on the condition of Spain. The following year he completed his " Elementary course of Philosophy." But his physical strength was not equal to these arduous labors. To re-establish in some degree his declining health, he travelled in Spain and France, and remained several weeks in Paris. The intellectual and moral cor ruption which was gnawing at the very vitals of the French nation, and threatened all Europe with its infection, filled him with increased anxiety. He predicted the dissolution of society, and a return to barbarism, unless things would take some unexpected turn through the special interposition of Providence. This last hope was the only resource left, in his opinion, for the salvation of society and civilization, and he exulted when he beheld Pius IX opening a new career for Italy, and consecrating the aspirations and movements of all who advocated legitimate reform and rational liberty. The political ameliorations, however, of the sovereign Pontiff appeared to the opponents of liberalism in Spain, at variance with the great opposition which Balmes had always exhibited to the revolutionary spirit. Hence, it became necessary for him to pay the just tribute of his admiration to the illustrious individual who sat in the chair of Peter, and to proclaim the eminent virtues of the prince and the pontiff. This he did with surpassing eloquence, in a brochure entitled Pius IX, the brilliant style of which is only equalled by its wisdom of thought. In this work, he sketches with graphic pen, the acts of the papal policy, showing that the holy see is the best guide of men in the path of liberty and progress, that Pius IX shows a profound knowledge of the evils that afflict society, and possesses all the energy and firmness necessary to apply their proper remedy. Balmes was full of hope for the future, in contemplating the course of the great head of the church, and he cherished this hope to the last moment of his life. His essay on the policy of Pius IX was the last production of his pen. His career in literature was brief, but brilliant and effective. Eight years only had elapsed since his appearance as a writer, and he had labored with eminent success in every department of knowledge. The learned divine, the profound philosopher, the enlightened publicist, he has stamped upon his age the impress of his genius, and bequeathed to posterity a rich legacy in his immortal works. In the moral as well as in the intellectual point XII NOTICE OF TIHE AUTHOR. of view, his merit may be summed up in those words of Wisdom Being made perfect in a short space, he fulfilled a long time." chap. iv. This distinguished ecclesiastic, the boast of the Spanish clergy and the Catalan people, died at Vich, his native city, on the 9th of July, 1848, in the same spirit of lively faith and fervent piety which had always marked his life. His funeral took place on the 11th, with all the pomp that'could be furnished by the civil and ecclesiastical authorities The municipality decreed that one of the public places should be named after hmn. Balmes was little below the middle height, and of weak and slender frame. But the appearance of feeble health which he exhibited, was combatted by the animation of his looks. His forehead and lips bore the impress of energy, which was to be seen also in his eyes, black, deepset, and of unusual brightness. The expression of his countenance wa. a mixture of vivacity, openness, melancholy and strength of mind. A careful observer of all his sacerdotal duties, he found in the practices of piety, the vigor which he displayed in his intellectual labors. The distribution of his time was extremely methodical, and his pleasures consisted only in the society of his friends. To the prospect of temporal honors and the favor of the great, he was insensible; neither did he seek after ecclesiastical dignities or literary distinctions. His aim was the diffusion of truth, not the acquisition of a great reputation. These qualities, however, with his eminent talents, varied erudition, and invaluable writings, have won for him a universal fame. TABLE OF CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. THE NAME AND NATURE OF PROTESTANTISM, Page 25 CHAPTER II. THE CAUSES OF PROTESTANTISM. What ought to be attributed to the genius of its founders-Different causes assigned for it-Errors on this subject-Opinions of Guizot-Of Bossuet-True cause of Protestantism to be found in the social condition of European nations,... 28 CHAPTER III. EXTRAORDINARY PHENOMENON IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Divinity of the Catholic Church proved by its relations with the human mind —Remarkable acknowledgment of M. Guizot-Consequences of that acknowledgment,.. 38 CHAPTER IV. PROTESTANTISM AND THE HUMAN MIND. Protestantism contains a principle of dissolution-It tends naturally to destroy all faithDangerous direction given to the hunlan mind-Description of the human mind,. 42 CHAPTER V. INSTINCT OF FAITI IN THE SCIENCES. Instinct of faith-This instinct extends to all the sciences-Newton, Descartes-Observations on the history of philosophy-Proselytism-Present condition of the human mind,........46 CHAPTER VI. DIFFERENT RELIGIOUS WANTS OF NATIONS-MATHEMATICS-MORAL SCIENCES. Important error committed by Protestantism, with regard to the religious government of the human mind,.......50 CHAPTER VII. INDIFFERENCE AND FANATICISM. Two opposite evils, fruits of Protestantism-Origin of fanaticism-The Church has prepared the history of the human mind-Private interpretation of the Bible-Passage from O'Callaghan-Description of the Bible,......53 CHAPTER VIII. FANATICISM-ITS DEFINITION-FANATICISM IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Connexion between fanaticism and religious feeling-Impossibility of destroying it-Means of diminishing it-The Church has used these means, and with what result?-Observations on the pretended Catholic fanatics-Description of the religious excitement of the founders of orders in the Church,.... 57 CHAPTER IX. INCREDULITY AND RELI1IOUS INDIFFERENCE IN EUROPE THE FRUITS OF PROTESTANTISM, Lamentable symptoms of these from the beginning of Protestantism-Remarkable religious crisis in the latter part of the seventeenth century-Bossuet and Leibnitz-The Jansenists-Their influence-Dictionary of Bayle-The epoch when that work appeared-State of opinions among the Protestants,. 60 CHAPTER X. CAUSES OF THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF PROTESTANTISM. Important question with regard to the continuance of Protestantism-Religious indifference with respect to man collectively and individually-European societies with relation to Mahometanism and idolatry-How Catholicity and Protestantism are capable of defending the truth-Intimate connexion between Christianity and European civilization,.... 64 XIV TABLE O0 CONTENTS. CHAPTER XI. TIE POSITIVE DOCTRINES OF PROTESTANTISM ARE REPUGNANT TO THE INSTINCT OF CIVILIZATION. Doctrines of Protestantism divided into positive and negative-Singular phenomenon: one of the principal dogmas of the founders of Protestantism repugnant to European civilizationL-Eminent service which Catholicity has done to civilization by defending free will-Nature of error-Nature of truth,.... 68 CHAPTER XII. EFFECTS WHICH THE INTRODUCTION OF PROTESTANTISM. INTO SPAIN WOULD HAVE PRODUCED. Present state of religious ideas in Europe-Victories of religion-State of science and literature-Condition of modern society-Conjectures on the future influence of Catholicity-Is it probable that Protestantism will be introduced into Spain?-England-Her connexion with Spain-Pitt-Nature of religious ideas in Spain-Situation of SpainHow she may be regenerated,.....70 CHAPTER XIII. PROTESTANTISM AND CATHOLICITY IN THEIR RELATION TO SOCIAL PROGRESS-PRELIMINARY COUP D' EIL. Commencement of the parallel-Liberty-Vague meaning of the word-European civilization chiefly due to Catholicity-East and West-Conjectures on the destinies of Catholicity amid the catastrophies that may threaten in Europe-Observations on philosophical studies-Fatalism of a certain modern historical school,... 79 CHAPTER XIV. DID THERE EXIST, AT THE TIME WHEN CHRISTIANITY APFEARED, ANOTHER PRINCIPLE OF REGENERATION? Condition, religious, social, and scientific, of the world at the appearance of ChristianityRoman law-The influence of Christian ideas thereon-Evils of the political organization of the empire-System adopted by Christianity; her first care'was to change ideasChristianity and Paganism with regard to the teaching of moral doctrines-Protestant preaching,.......84 CHAPTER XV. DIFFICULTIES WHICH CHRISTIANITY HAD TO OVERCOME IN THE WORK OF SOCIAL REGENERATION-SLAVERY-COULD IT HAVE' BEEN DESTROYED MORE SPEEDILY THAN IT WAS BY CHRISTIANITY? The Church was not only a great and productive school, but she was also a regenerating association-What she had to do-Difficulties which she had to overcome-SlaveryBy whom was it abolished?-Opinion of M. Guizot-Immense number of the slavesCaution necessary in the abolition of slavery-Was immediate abolition possible?-Refutation of the opinion of M. Guizot,....90 CHAPTER XVI. IDEAS AND MANNERS OF ANTIQUITY RESPECTING SLAVERY-THE CIURCH BEGINS BY IM. PROVING THE CONDITION OF SLAVES. The Catholic Church not only employs her doctrines, her maxims, and her spirit of charity, but also makes use of practical means in the abolition of slavery-Point of view in which this historical fact ought to be considered-False ideas of the ancients on the sub ject-Homer, Plato, Aristotle-Christianity began forthwith to combat these errorsChristian doctrines on the connexion between master and slave-The Church employs herself in improving the condition of slaves,. 94 CHAPTER XVII. MEANS USED BY THE CHURCH TO ENFRANCHISE SLAVES. 1st. She zealously defends the liberty of the enfranchised-Manumission in the churchesEffects of this practice-2d. Redemption of captives-Zeal of the Church in practising and extending the redemption of captives-Prejudices of the Romans on this pointThe zeal of the Church for this object contributes, in an extraordinary degree, to the abolition of slavery-The Church protects the liberty of the free,... CHAPTER XVIII. CONTINUATION OF THE SAME SUBJECT. 3d. System of the Church with regard to slaves belonging to Jews-Motives which actuated the Church in the enfranchisement of her own slaves-Her indulgence to them — Her generosity towards the freed-The slaves of the Church considered as consecrated to God-Salutary effects of tHis way of viewing them-4th. Liberty is granted to those TABLE OF CONTENTS. XV who wish to embrace the monastic state —Effects of this practice-Conduct of the Church with regard to the ordination of slaves-Abuses introduced in this respect checired-Discipline of the Spanish Church on this point,. 106 CHAPTER XIX. DOCTRINES OF ST. AUGUSTIN AND ST. THOMAS OF AQUIN ON THE SUBJECT OF SLAVERYRECAPITULATION. Doctrine of St. Augustin on this subject-Importance of this doctrine with respect to the abolition of slavery-Refutation of M. Guizot-Doctrine of St. Thomas on the same subject-Marriage of slaves-Regulation of canon law on that subject-Resume of the means employed by the Church in the abolition of slavery-Refutation of M. GuizotThe abolition of slavery exclusively due to Catholicity-Protestantism had no share therein,.. 11. CHAPTER XX. CONTRAST BETWEEN THE TWO KINDS OF CIVILIZATION Picture of modern civilization-Civilizations not Christian-Civilization is composed of three elements: the individual, the family, and the society —The perfectness of these three elements depends on the perfectness of doctrines,...... 115 CHAPTER XXI. OF THE INDIVIDUAL —OF THE FEELING OF INDIVIDUALITY OUT OF CHRISTIANITY. Distinction between the individual and the citizen-Of the individuality of barbarians according to M. Guizot-Whether in antiquity individuality belonged exclusively to the barbarians-Twofold principle of the feeling of personal independence-This feeling infinitely modified-Picture of barbarian life-True character of individuality among the barbarians-Avowal of M. Guizot-The feeling of individuality, according to the definition of M. Guizot, belongs in a certain way to all the ancient nations,... 118 CHAPTER XXII. HOW THE INDIVIDUAL BECAME ABSORBED BY THE ANCIENT SOCIETY. Respect for man unknown to the ancients-What has been seen in modern revolutionsTyranny of public power over private interests-Explanation of a twofold phenomenon, which presents itself to us in antiquity and in modern societies not Christian-Opinion of Aristotle-Remarkable characteristic of modern democracy,.. 126 CHAPTER XXIII. OF THE PROGRESS OF INDIVIDUALITY UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF CATHOLICITY. The feeling of true independence was possessed by the faithful of the primitive ChurchError of M. Guizot on this point: Ist, dignity of conscience sustained by the Christian society; 2d, feeling of duty; language of St. Cyprian; 3d, development of the interior life; 4th, defence of free will by the Catholic Church-Conclusion,...131 CHAPTER XXIV. OF THE FAMILY-MONOGAMY-MARRIAGE-TIE INDISSOLUBLE. Woman ennobled by Catholicity alone-Practical means employed by the Church to raise woman-Christian doctrine on the dignity of woman-Monogamy-Different conduct of Catholicity and Protestantism on this point-Firmness of Rome with respect to marriage-Effects of that firmness-Doctrine of Luther-Indissolubility of marriage-Of divorce among Protestants-Effects of Catholic doctrine with regard to this sacrament,............ 135 CHAPTER XXV. THE PASSION OF LOVE. Pretended rigor of Catholicity with respect to unhappy marriages-Two systems of governing the passions-Protestant system-Catholic system-Examples-Passion of gambling-Explosion df the passions in time of public troubles-Of the passion of love-Its inconstancy-Marriage alone is not a sufficient control-What is wanted to make it a control-Of the unity and fixity of Catholic doctrine-Conclusion,... 140 CHAPTER XXVI. OF VIRGINITY IN ITS SOCIAL ASPECT. Of the ennoblement of woman by virginity-Conduct of Protestantism on this pointClose analysis of the heart of woman-Of virginity with respect to population-England -Serious thoughts required for the mind of woman-Salutary influence of monastic customs-General method of appreciation,.... 4 XVI TABLE OF CONTENTS. CHAPTER XXVII. OF CHIVALRY, AND THE MANNERS OF THE BARBARIANS IN TIIEIR INFLUENCE ON THE CONDITION OF WOMAN. The life of feudal lords according to M Guizot-The passions and faith in chivalry-Chivalry did not ennoble woman, it supposed her to be ennobled-Of the respect of the Germans for woman-Analysis of a passage of Tacitus-Reflections on that historian-It is difficult thoroughly to understand the manners of the Germans-Action of CatholicityImportant distinction between Christianity and Catholicity-That the Germans of themselves were incapable of giving dignity to woman,.. 150 CHAPTER XXVIII. OF THE PUBLIC CONSCIENCE IN GENERAL. What the public conscience is-Influence of the feelings on the public conscience in general -Education contributes to form the conscience-State of the public conscience in modern times-What has been able to form the public conscience in Europe-Successive contests maintained by Christian morality,.......... 157 CHAPTER XXIX. OF THE PRINCIPLE OF THE PUBLIC CONSCIENCE ACCORDING TO MONTESQUIEU-HONOR-. VIRTUE. Institution of censors according to Montesquieu-Two kinds of prejudice in the author of the Esprit des Lois-He assigns honor as the principle of monarchies, and virtue as that of republics-Explanation of the feeling of honor-What is required to strengthen this feeling-The censorial power replaced by the religious-Examples-Contrasts,.. 161 CHAPTER XXX. ON THE DIFFERENT INFLUENCE OF PROTESTANTISM AND CATHOLICITY ON THE PUBLIC CONSCIENCE. Catholicity considered as a creed-As an institution-Ideas, in order to be efficacious, must be realized in an institution-What Protestantism has done to destroy Christian morality -What it has done to preserve it-What is the real power of preaching among Protestants-Of the sacrament of penance with relation to the public conscience-Of the degree to which the Catholic religion raises morality-Of unity in the soul-Unity simplifiesOf the great number of moralists within the bosom of the Catholic Church-Of the peculiar force of ideas-Distinction between ideas with respect to their peculiar force-Whether the human race is a faithful depositary of the truth-How the truth has been preserved among the Jews-The native power of Schools-Institutions are required, not only to teach, but also to apply doctrines-Of the press with relation to the preservation of ideas-Of intuition-Of discourses,.... 165 CHAPTER XXXI. OF GENTLENESS OF MANNERS IN GENERAL. Wherein gentleness of manners consists-Difference between gentle and effeminate manners-Influence of the Catholic Church in softening manners-Pagan and Christian societies-Slavery-Paternal authority-Public games-Reflections on Spanish bullfights,........ 172 CHAPTER XXXII. OF THE AMELIORATION OF MANNERS BY THE ACTION OF THE CHURCH. Elements adapted to perpetuate harshness of manners in the bosom of modern societyConduct of the Church in this respect-Remarkable canons and facts-St. Ambrose and the Emperor Theodosius-The Truce of God-Very remarkable regulations of the ecclesiastical authority on this subject,.......... 175 CHAPTER XXXIII. OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC BENEFICENCE IN EUROPE. Difference between Protestantism and Catholicity with respect to public beneficence-Para. dox of Montesquieu-Remarkable canons of the Church-Injury done by Protestantism to the development of public beneficence-The value of philanthropy,... 184 CHAPTER XXXIV. OF TOLERANCE IN MATTERS OF RELIGION. The question of intolerance has been examined with bad faith-What tolerance is-Tolerance of opinions-Of error-Tolerance in the individual-With religious men-With unbelievers-Two kinds of religious men-Two kinds of unbelievers-Tolerance in society — What is its origin?-Source of the tolerance which prevails in society at present, 189 TABLE Oi' CONTENTS. XVII CHAPTER XXXV. OF THE RIGHT OF COERCION IN GENERAL. mtolerance is a general fact in history-Dialogues with the partisans of universal tolerance -Does there exist a right of punishing doctrines?-Researches into the origin of that right-Disastrous influence of Protestantism and infidelity in this matter-Of the import ance which Catholicity attaches to the sin of heresy-Inconsistency of certain timid Voltairians-Another reflection on the right of punishing doctrines-Resume,.. 196 CHAPTER XXXVI. OF THE INQUISITION IN SPAIN. Institutions and legislation founded on intolerance-Causes of the rigor displayed in the early times of the Inquisitioni-Three epochs in the history of the Inquisition in Spain: against the Jews and Moors; against the Protestants; against the unbelievers-Severities of the Inquisition-Causes of those severities-Conduct of the Popes in that matter -Mildness of the Roman Inquisition-The intolerance of Luther with respect to the Jews-The Moors and Moriscoes,.... 203 CHAPTER XXXVII. SECOND PERIOD OF THE INQUISITION IN SPAIN. New Inquisition attributed to Philip II.-Opinion of M. Lacordaire-Prejudice against Philip II.-Observations on the work called Inquisition Devoilie-Rapid coup d'cil at the second epoch of the Inquisition-Trial of Carranza-Observation on this trial, and on the personal qualities of the illustrious accused-Why there is so much partiality against Philip II.-Reflections on the policy of that monarch-Singular anecdote of a preacher who was compelled to retract —Reflections on the influence of the spirit of the age, 210 CHAPTER XXXVIII. RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THEMSELVES. Conduct of Protestantism with respect to religious institutions-Whether these institutions have been of importance in history-Sophism on the subject of the real origin of religious institutions-Their correct definition-Of association among the early faithful-The faithful dispersed in the deserts-Relations between the Papacy and religious institutions -Of an essential want of the human heart-Of Christian pensiveness-Of the need of associations for the practice of perfection-Of vows-A vow is the most perfect act of liberty —rue notion of liberty,......... 21 CHAPTER XXXIX. RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN HISTORY-THE EARLY SOLITARIES. Character of religious institutions in a historical point of view-The Roman empire-The barbarians-The early Christians-Condition of the Church when Christianity ascended the throne of the Cresars-Life of the fathers of the desert-Influence of the solitaries on philosophy and manners-The heroism of penance saves morality-The most corrupting climate chosen for the triumph of the most austere virtues, 29 CHAPTER XL. RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE EAST. Influence of monasteries -in the, East-Why civilization triumphed in the West and perished in the East-Influence of the Eastern monasteries on Arabian civilization,.. 234 CHAPTER XLI. RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE HISTORY OF THE WEST. Peculiar character of religious institutions in the West-St. Benedict-Struggle of the monks against the decline of things-Origin of monastic property-The possessions of the monks serve to create respect for property-Population becomes spread over the country-Science and letters in cloisters-Gratian arouses the study of law,.. 238 CHAPTER XLII. OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS DURING THE SECOND HALF OF THE MIDDLE AGES IN THE WESTTHE MILITARY ORDERS, character of the military orders-Opinion of the Crusades-The foundation of the military orders is a continuation of the Crusades,..... 242 CHAPTER XLIII. CONTINUATION OF THE SAIVE SUBJECT-EUROPE IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY. Transformation of the monastic spirit in the thirteenth century-Religious institutions arise every where-Character of European opposed to that of other civilizations-Mixture of 2 XFIII TABLE OF CONTENTS, various elements ih the spirit of the thirteenth century-Semi-barbarous society-Chris. tianity and barbarism-A delusion common in the study of history-Condition of Europe at the beginning of the thirteenth century-Wars become more popular-Why the. intellectual movement began in Spain sooner than in the rest of Europe-Ebullition o! evil during the course of the twelfth century-Tancheme-Eon-The Manicllees —Vaudois-Religious movement at the beginning of the thirteenth century-The mendicant and preaching orders-The character of these orders-Their influence-Their relations with the Papacy,........ 244 CHAPTER XLIV. RELIGIOUS ORDERS FOR THE REDEMPTION OF CAPTIVES. Multitude of Christians reduced to slavery-Religious orders for the redemption of captives were necessary-The Order of the Trinity and that of Mercy-St. Peter Armengol, 256 CHAPTER XLV. UNIVERSAL ADVANCE OF CIVILIZATION IMPEDED BY PROTESTANTISM. Effects of Protestantism on the progress of civilization in the world, beginning with tne sixteenth century-What enabled civilization, during the middle ages, to triumph over barbarism-Picture of Europe at the beginning of the sixteenth century-Trhe civilizing missions of the 16th century interrupted by the schism of Luther-Why the action of the Church on barbarous nations has lost power during three centuries-Whether the Christianity of our days is less adapted to propagate the faith than that of the early ages of the Church-Christian missions in the early times of the Church-VWhat the real mission of Luther has been,....... 260 CHAPTER XLVI. THE JESUITs. Their importance in the history of European civilization-Causes of the hatred which has been excited against them-Character of the Jesuits-Contradiction of M. Guizot on this subject-Whether it be true, as M. Guizot says, that the Jesuits have destroyed nations in Spain-Facts and dates-Unjust accusations against the Company of Jesus,. 28 CHAPTER XLVII. THE FUTURE OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS —THEIR PRESENT NECESSITY. Present state of religious institutions-Picture of society-Inability of industry and com-'merce to satisfy the heart of man-Condition of minds with respect to religion-Religious institutions will be necessary to save existing society-Nothing fixed in that society-Means are wanting for social organization-The march of European nations has been perverted-Physical means of restraining the masses-Moral means are requiredReligious institutions reconcilable with the advancement of modern times,. 274 CHAPTER XLVIII. RELIGION AND LIBERTY. Rousseau-The Protestants-Divine law-Origin of power-False interpretation of the divine law-St. John Chrysostom-On. paternal authority-Relations between paternal authority and civil power,.......... 281 CHAPTER XLIX. THE ORIGIN OF SOCIETY, ACCORDING TO CATHOLIC THEOLOGIANS. Doctrines of theologians on the origin of society-The character of Catholic theologians compared to that of modern writers-St. Thomas-Bellarmin-Suarez-St. Alphonsus de Liguori-Father Concina-Billuart-The Compendium of Salamanca,.. 288 CHAPTER L. OF DIVINE LAW, ACCORDING TO CATHOLIC DOCTORS.')n the divine law-Divine origin of civil power-In what manner God communicates this power-Rousseau-On pacts-The right of life and death-The right of war-Power must necessarily emanate from God-Puffendorff-Hobbes,.. 298 CHAPTER LI. THE TRANSMISSION OF POWER, ACCORDING TO CATHOLIC DOCTORS.,irect or indirect communication of civil power-The distinction between the two opinions important in some respects; in others, not so-Why Catholic theologians have so zealously maintained the doctrine of mediate communication,.... 305 CHAPTER LII. ON THE FREEDOM OF LANGUAGE UNDER THE SPANISH MONARCHY. Influence of doctrines on society-Flattery lavished on power-Danger of this flattery TABLE OF CONTENTS. XIX Liberty of speech cn this point in Spain during the last three centuries-MarianaSaavedra-In the absence of religion and morality, the most rigorous political doctrines are incapable df saving society-Why the conservative schools of our days are. powerless-Seneca-Cicero-Hobbes-Bellarmin,.....311 CHAPTER LIII. OF THE FACULTIES OF THE CIVIL POWER. Of the faculties of civil power-Calumnies of the enemies of the Church-Definition of law according to St. Thomas-General reason and general will-The venerable PalafoxHobbes-Grotius-The doctrines of certain Protestants favorable to despotism-Justification of the Catholic Church,.... 317 CHAPTER LIV. ON RESISTANCE TO THE CIVIL POWER. Of resistance to the civil power-Parallel between Protestantism and Catholicity on this point-Unfounded apprehensions of certain minds-Attitude of revolutions in this ageThe principle inculcated by Catholicity on the obligation of obeying the lawful authorities-Preliminary questions-Difference between the two powers-Conduct of Catholicity and Protestantism with regard to the separation of the two powers-The independence of the spiritual power a guarantee of liberty to the people-Extremes which meetThe doctrine of St. Thomas on obedience,....... 324 CHAPTER LV. ON RESISTANCE TO DE FACTO GOVERNMENTS. Governments existing merely de facto-Right of resistance to these governments-Napoleon and the Spanish nation-fallacy of the doctrine establishing the. obligation of obedience to mere de facto governments-Investigation of certain difficulties-Accomplished factsHow we are to understand the respect due to accomplished facts,... 330 CHAPTER LVI. HOW IT IS ALLOWED TO RESIST THE CIVIL POWER. On resistance to lawful authority-The doctrines of the Council of Constance on the assassination of a king-A reflection on the inviolability of kings-Extreme cases-Doctrine of St. Thomas of Aquin, Cardinal Bellarmin, Suarez, and other theologians-The Abb6 de Lamennais' errors-He is wrong in imagining that his doctrine, condemned by the Pope, is the same as St. Thomas of Aquin's-A parallel between the doctrines of St. Thomas and those of the Abbe de Lamennais-A word on the temporal power of the Popes-Ancient doctrines on resistance to power-Language of the Counsellors of Barcelona-The doctrine of certain theologians on the case of the Sovereign Pontiff's falling into heresy in his private capacity —Why the Church has been calumniously accused of being sometimes favorable to despotism, and sometimes to anarchy,... 336 CHAPTER LVII. ON POLITICAL SOCIETY IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. The Church and political forms-Protestantism and liberty-Language of M. Guizot-The state of the question better defined-Europe at the end of the fifteenth century-Social movement at this epoch-Its causes-Its effects and its aim-The three elements, mon.archy, aristocracy, and democracy,..... 343 CHAPTER LVIII. ON MONARCHY IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. The idea entertained of monarchy at this period-The application of this idea-Difference between monarchy and despotism-The nature of monarchy at the commencement of the sixteenth century-Its relations with the Church,.. 346 CHAPTER LIX. ON ARISTOCRACY IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. The nobility and the clergy-The differences between these two aristocracies-The nobility and monarchy-Differences between them-An intermediate class between the throne and the people-The causes of the fall of the nobility,...... 34 CHAPTER LX. ON DEMOCRACY IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. The opinion entertained of democracy-The prevailing doctrines of that epoch-The doctrines of Aristotle neutralised by the teaching of Christianity-On castes-A passage from M. Guizot on castes-Influence of the celibacy of the clergy in preventing an hereditary succession-The consequences resulting from a married clergy-Catholicity and the peo XX TABLE OF CONTENTS. pie-Development of the industrial classes in Europe-The Hanseatic ConfederationEstablishment of the trades-corporations of Paris-Industrial movement in Italy and Spain-Calvinism and the democratic element-Protestantism and the democrats of the sixteenth century,...... 350 CHAPTER LXI. VALUE OF DIFFERENj POLITICAL FORMS-CHARACTER OF MONARCHY IN EUROPE. Value of political forms-Catholicity and liberty —Monarchy was essential-Character of European monarchy-Difference between Europe and Asia-Quotation from Count de Maistre-An institution for the limiting of power-4Political liberty not indebted to Protestantism-Influence of Councils-The aristocracy of talent encouraged by the Church,...... 356 CHAPTER LXII. HOW MONARCHY WAS STRENGTHENED IN EUROPE. Monarchy in the sixteenth century is strengthened in Europe-Its preponderance over free institutions-Why the word liberty is a scandal to some people-Protestantism contributed to the destruction of popular institutions,. 361 CHAPTER LXIII. TWO SORTS OF DEMOCRACY. Two sorts of democracy-Their parallel march in the history of Europe-Their characters -Their causes and effects-Why absolutism became necessary in Europe-Historical facts-France-England-Sweden-Denmark-Germany,. 364 CHAPTER LXIV. CONTEST BETWEEN THE THREE SOCIAL ELEMENTS. Contest between monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy-How monarchy came to prevail -Fatal effects of the weakening of the political influence of the clergy-Advantages which might have arisen from this influence to popular institutions-Relations of the clergy with all powers and classes of society,..... 370 CHAPTER LXV. POLITICAL DOCTRINES BEFORE THE APPEARANCE OF PROTESTANTISM. Parallel between the political doctrines of the eighteenth century, those of modern publicists, and those which prevailed in Europe before the appearance of Protestantisn — Protestantism has prevented the homogeneity of European civilization-Histor cal proofs,........ 374 CHAPTER LXVI. OF POLITICAL DOCTRINES IN SPAIN. Catholicity and politics in Spain-Real state of the question-Five causes contributed to the overthrow of popular institutions in Spain-Difference between ancient and modern liberty-The Communeros of Castille-The policy of her kings-Ferdinand the Catholic and Ximenes-Charles V.-Philip II.,........ 377 CHAPTER LXVII. POLITICAL LIBERTY AND RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE. Political liberty and religious intolerance-Europe was developed under the exclusive influence of Catholicity-Picture of Europe from the eleventh to the fourteenth century-Condition of the social problem at the end of the fifteenth century-Temporal power of the Popes-Its character, origin, and effects,........ 382 CHAPTER LXVIII. UNITY IN FAITH RECONCILED WITH POLITICAL LIBERTY. It is false that unity of faith is opposed to political liberty-Impiety is allied with liberty or despotism, according to circumstances-Modern revolutions-Difference between the revolution of the United States and that of France-Pernicious effects of the French revolution-Liberty impossible without morality-Remarkable passage from St. Augustin on forms of government,.... 388 CHAPTER LXIX. INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF CATHOLICITY. Catholicity in its relations with intellectual development-What is the influence of the principle of submission to authority-What are the effects of this principle with respect to all the sciences-Parallel between ancients and moderns-God-Man-Society-Nature,....... 392 TABLE OF CONTENTS. XXI CHAPTER LXX. HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT. Historical investigation of the influence of Catholicity on the development of the human mind-Refutation of one of M. Guizot's opinions-John Erigena-Roscelin and Abelard -St. Anselm,. 398 CHAPTER LXXI. RELIGION AND THE HUMAN INTELLECT IN EUROPE. Religion and the human intellect in Europe-Difference between the intellectual development of the nations of antiquity and those of Europeans-Causes that have accelerated this development in Europe-Origin of the spirit of subtilty-Service which the Church rendered to the human mind by her opposition to the subtilties of the innovators-Parallel between Roscelin and St. Anselm-Reflections on St. Bernard-St. Thomas of Aquin -Advantage of his dictatorship in the schools-Advent of St. Thomas in the middla ages of immense advantage to the human mind,.... 404 CHAPTER LXXII. PROGRESS OF THE HUMAN MIND FROM THE ELEVENTH CENTURY TO THE PRESENT I,.IE. Progress of the human mind from the eleventh century to our own times-Different phases -Protestantism and Catholicity in their relations to learning, to criticism, to the learned languages, to the foundation of universities, to the progress of literature and the arts, to mysticism, to high philosophy, to metaphysics, to ethics, to religious philosophy, and to the philosophy of history,. 412 CHAPTER LXXIII. SUMMARY OF THE WORK —DECLARATION OF THE AUTHOR. Summary of tl.e work-The author submits it to the judgment of the Roman Church, 419 TABLE OF NOTES. **.TR PAGE NOTE PAGE 1 421. Gibbon and Bossuet's History of 15 436. ~ 5. Canons concerning the the Variations. slaves of Jews. 2 421. Intolerance of Luther and the other 6. Canons concerning the Coryphaei of Protestantism. enfranchisement of the 3 421. Origin of the name Protestantism slaves of the Church. 4 422. Observations on names. ~ 7. Conduct of the Church 5 422. Of abuses in the Church. with regard to modern 6 423. Of the unity and harmonious ac- slavery -Apostolic let. tion of Catholicism-Happy idea ters of St. Gregory XVI. of St. Francis of Sales. -Slave trade-Doctrine, 7 423. Acknowledgments of the most dis- conduct, and influence of tinguished Protestants with re- the Church with regard g ard to its weakness-Luther, to the abolition of the Melancthon, Beza, Calvin, Gro- trade, and of slavery in tius, Papin, Puffendorf and Leib- the Colonies - Passage nitz-Of a posthumous work by from Robertson. Leibnitz on religion. 16 442. Doctrines of Plato and Aristotle 8 424. On human knowledge-Louis touching infanticide-Their docVives. trine on the rights ofsociety. 9 425. On mathematics-Eximeno, a Spa- 17 444. Degradation of woman in ancient nish Jesuit.' times, especially in Rome. 10 425. Heresies of the early ages-their 18 444. The Germans of Tacitus judged character. according to subsequent events. 11 425. Superstition and fanaticism of 19 445. Corruption of ancient manners. Protestantism-Luther's devil, 20 445. Different opinions of religion a —u Zwinglius's phantom, Melanc- philosophy on the power of ideas thon's prognostics, Mathias Har- -How far it is true that every lem, the Tailor of Leyden, King idea requires an institution. of Sion; Hermann, Nicholas 21 446. Christianity is still in our days the Hacket, and others, visionaries source of mildness of manners and fanatics. 22. 447. Influence of the Church on barba12 427. Visions of Catholics-St. Theresa, rian legislation-Councils of Toher visins. ledo-What the indulgence of 13 428. Bad faith of the founders of Protes- the criminal code among the tantisrn-Passages proving this barbarians proves. -Ravages committed by incred- 23 449. Constant intervention of the ulity after that time-Gruet- Church in the administration of Remarkable passages from Mon- public beneficence-Regulations taigne. of the Council of Trent on this 14 429. Extravagance of the early heresies, subject- Property of hospitals a proof of the state of knowledge considered as that of the Church. in those times. 24 450. Reference to the following note. 15 430. Canons and other documents which 25 450. Distinction between civil and relishew the solicitude of the Church gious intolerance - Error of to improve the lot of slaves, and Rousseau on this point-False the various means which she doctrine of the Contrat Social. uaed to complete the abolition of 26 452. Passages from old laws relative to slavery. the Inquisition —Pragmaticsanc~ 1. Canons intended to im- tion ofFerdinand and Isabellaprove the lot of slaves. Laws of Philip I. and III.-Prag. ~ 2. Canons intended to defend matic sanction of Ferdinand and the freed, and to protect Isabella concerning the relations those who were recom- of the Spanish Inquisition with mended to the Church. Rome-Passage from Don Anto~ 3. Canons and other docu- nio Perez, which mentions the ments relating to the re- anecdote of the preacher at Maddemption of captives. rid-Letter from Phillip II. to 4. Carons relating to the Arias Montano, on the subject of pro*tct;n ff *he freed. the library of the Escurial. XXiV TABLE OF NOTES. NOTE PAOE NOTE PAGE 26 456. (Appendix.) A few words on Puig- 38 480. Texts of St. Thomas on political blanch,Villeneuve, and Llorente. forms-Other texts of St. Thomas 27 458. Religious institutions in an histo- to prove that the law, and not rical point of view-Last coup- the will of man, should governd'ceit at their origin and develop- Opinions of P. Mariana-Opinment-Details with respect to ions of the venerable Palafox on the vow of chastity whichvirgins the subject of imposts, taken and widows made in the early from his Memoir to the Kingages of the Church. Severe language of the same 28 459. Remarkable texts explaining the author against tyranny and passage of St. Paul in the 13th those who advise or excuse itchapter of his Epistle to the Ro- Passage from P. Marquez on the mans —Cicero-Horace. right of levying tributes in gen29 462. A remarkable fact. eral; its particular application 30 463. Quotations from P. Fr. John de to Castile-The opinion of the Ste.-Marie,and from P. Zeballos. same author relative to the right 31 470. St. Thomas reminds princes of of the supreme authority to the their duties. propert of its subjects-A case 32 471. The opinion of D. Felix d'Amat, in whic, according to him, that bishop of Palmyra, on the obedi- authority may dispose of this ence due todefacto governments. property. 33 471. Remarkable passages from St. 39 484. Reference to historical sources to Thomas and Suarez, on the dis- ascertain the march of the deputes which may arise between velopment of monarchical power governors and the governed- in the different provinces of Father Marquez on the same Spain. subject. 40 484. A just observation of Count de 34 475. Charter of Hermandad between the Maistre on the conduct of the kingdoms of Leon and Galicia Popes compared to that of other and that of Castille, for the pre- sovereigns. servation and defence of their 41 485. Passages in which St. Aneelm exfueros and liberties. pounds his views on religious 35 476. A rernarkatle passage from Cap- subjects-Intellectual movement many on the organization of the arising in the bosom of the industrial classes-The origin Churc without transgressing and salutary effects of the insti- the bounds of faith-Another'ution of trades-corporation. passage proving that the demon36 480. Reflections of Count de Maistre stration applied by Descartes to on the causes which render the the existence of God had been celebration of General Councils discovered by St. Anselm-Cor. less frequent. roborative Documents in support 37 480. Indication of historical sources for of a refutation of I. Guizot's er the confirmation of certain facts. rors on the doctrines of Abelard PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. CHAPTER I. NAME AND NATURE OF PROTESTANTISM. THERE is a fact in existence among civilized nations, very important on account of the nature of the things which it affects-a fact of transcendent importance, on account of the number, variety, and consequence of its influences -a fact extremely interesting, because it is connected with the principal events of modern history. This fact is Protestantism. Like a clap of thunder, it attracted at once the attention of all Europe; on one side it spread alarm, and on the other excited the most lively sympathy: it grew so rapidly, that its adversaries had not time to strangle it in its cradle. Scarcely had it begun to exist, and already all hope of stopping, or even restraining it, was gone; when, emboldened by being treated with respect and consideration, it became every day more daring; if exasperated by rigour, it openly resisted measures of coercion, or redoubled and concentrated its forces, to make more vigorous attacks. Discussions, the profound investigations and scientific methods which were used in combating it, contributed to develope the spirit of inquiry, and served as vehicles to propagate its ideas. By creating new and prevailing interests, it made itself powerful protectors; by throwing all the passions into a state of fury, it aroused them in its favor It availed itself, by turns, of stratagem, force, seduction, or violence, according to the exigencies of times and circumstances. It attempted to make its way in all directions; either destroying impediments, or taking advantage of them, if they were capable of being turned to account. When introduced into a country, it never rested until it had obtained guarantees for its continued existence; and it succeeded in doing so everywhere. After having obtained vast establishments in Europe —which it still retains-it was transported into other parts of the world, and infused into the veins of simple and unsuspecting nations. In order to appreciate a fact at its just value, to embrace it in all its relations, and to distinguish properly between them, it is necessary to examine whether the constituting principle of the fact can be ascertained, or at least whether we can observe in its appearance any characteristic trait capable.of revealing its inward nature. This examination is very difficult when we have to do with a fact of the kind and importance of that which now occupies our attention. In matters of this sort, numbers of opinions accumulate in the course of time, in favor of all which arguments have been sought. The inquirer, in the midst of so many and such various objects, is perplexed, disconcerted, and confounded; and if he wish to place himself in a more advantageous point of view, he finds the ground so covered with fragments, that he cannot make his way without risk of losing himself at every step. 4 C 25 2 6 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. The first glance which we give to Protestantism, whether we consider its actual condition, or whether we regard the various phases of its history, shows us that it is very difficult to find any thing constant in it, any thing which can be assigned as its constituent character. Uncertain in its opinions, it modifies them continually, and changes them in a thousand ways. Vague in its tendencies, and fluctuating in its desires, it attempts every form, and essays every road. It can never attain to a well-defined existence; and we see it every moment enter new paths, to lose itself in new labyrinths. Catholic controversialists have pursued and assailed it in every way; ask them what has been the result? They will tell you that they had to contend with a new Proteus, which always escaped the fatal blow by changing its form. If you wish to assail the doctrines of Protestantism, you do not know where to direct your attacks, for they are unknown to you, and even to itself. On this side it is invulnerable, because it has no tangible body. Thus, no more powerful argument has ever been urged, than that of the immortal Bishop of Meaux -viz. " You change; and that which changes is not the truth." An argument much feared by Protestantism, and with justice; because all the various forms which are assumed to evade its force, only serve to strengthen it. How just is the expression of that great man! At the very title of his book, Protestantism must tremble: The History of the Variations! A history of variations must be a history of error. (See note at the end of the vol.) These unceasing changes, which we ought not to be surprised at finding in Protestantism, because they essentially belong to it, show us that it is not in possession of the truth; they show us also, that its moving principle is not a principle of life, but an element of dissolution. It has been called upon, and up to this time in vain, to fix itself, and to present a compact and uniform body. How can that be fixed, which is, by its nature, kept floating about in the air? How can a solid body be formed of an element, the essential tendency of which is towards an incessant division of particles, by diminishing their reciprocal affinity, and increasing their repellent force? It will easily be seen that I speak of the right of private judgment in matters of faith, whether it be looked upon as a matter of human reason alone, or as an individual inspiration from heaven. If there be any thing constant in Protestantism, it is undoubtedly the substitution of private judgment for public and lawful authority. This is always found in union with it, and is, properly speaking, its fundamental principle: it is the only point of contact among the various Protestant sects,-the basis of their mutual resemblance. It is very remarkable that this exists, for the most part, unintentionally, and sometimes against their express wishes. However lamentable and disastrous this principle may be, if the coryphaei of Protestantism had made it their rallying point, and had constantly acted up to it in theory and practice, they would have been consistent in error. When men saw them cast into one abyss after another, they would have recognised a system,-false undoubtedly; but, at any rate, a system. As it is, it has not been even that: if you examine the words and the acts of the first Reformers, you will find that they made use of this principle as a means of resisting the authority which controlled them, but that they never dreamed of establishing it permanently; that if they labored to upset lawful authority, it was for the purpose of usurping the command themselves; that is to say, that they followed, in this respect, the example of revolutionists of all kinds, of all ages, and of all countries. Everybody knows how far Luther carried his fanatical intolerance; he who could not bear the slightest contradiction, either from his own disciples or anybody else, without giving way to the most senseless fits of passion, and the most unworthy outrages. Henry VIII. of England, who founded there what is called the liberty of thinking, sent to the scaffold thoae PROWESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICTrY. 27 who did not think as he did; and it was at the instigation of Calvin that Servetus was burnt alive at Geneva. I insist upon this point, because it seems to me to be of great importance. Men are but too much inclined to pride; and if they heard it constantly. repeated, without contradiction, that the innovators of the sixteenth oentury proclaimed the freedom of thought, a secret interest might be excited in their favor; their violent declamations might be regarded as the expressions of a generous movement, and their efforts as a noble attempt to assert the rights of intellectual freedom. Let it be known, never to be forgotten, that if these men proclaimed the principle of free examination, it was for the purpose of making use of it against legitimate authority; but that they attempted, as soon as they could, to impose upon others the yoke of their own opinions. Their constant endeavour was, to destroy the authority which came from God, in order to estalish their own upon its ruins. It is a painful necessity to be obliged to give proofs of this assertion; not because they are difficult to find, but because one cannot adduce the most incontestable of them without calling to mind words and deeds which not only cover with disgrace the founders of Protestantism, but are of such a nature, that they cannot be mentioned without a blush on the cheek, or written without a stain upon the paper. (2) Protestantism, when viewed in a mass, appears only a shapeless collection of innumerable sects, all opposed to each other, and agreeing only in one point, viz. in protesting against the authority of the Church. We only find among them particular and exclusive names, commonly taken from the names of their founders; in vain have they made a thousand efforts to give themselves a general name expressive of a positive idea; they are still called after the manner of philosophical sects. Lutherans, Calvinists, Zuinglians, Anglicans, Socinians, Arminians, Anabaptists, all these names, of which I could furnish an endless host, only serve to exhibit the narrowness of the circle in which these sects are enclosed; and it is only necessary to pronounce them, to show that they contain nothing universal, nothing great. Everybody who knows any thing of the Christian religion must be convinced by this fact alone, that these sects are not truly Christian. But what occurred when Protestantism attempted to take a general name, is singularly remarkable. If you examine its history, you will see that all the names which it attempted to give itself failed, if they contained any positive idea, or any mark of Christianity; but that it adopted a name taken by chance at the Diet of Spires; a name which carries with it its own condemnation, because it is repugnant to the origin, to the spirit, to the maxims, to the entire history of the Christian religion; a name which does not express that unity-that union which is inseparably connected with the Christian name; a name which is peculiarly becoming to it, which all the world gives to it by acclamation, which is truly its ownviz. Protestantism. (3) Within the vast limits marked out by this name, there is room for'every error and for every sect. You may deny with the Lutherans the liberty of man, or renew with the Arminians the errors of Pelagius. You may admit with some that real presence, which you are free to reject with the Calvinists and Zuinglians; you may join with the Socinians in denying the divinity of Jesus Christ; you may attach yourself to Episcopalians, to Puritans, or, if you please, to the extravagances of the Quakers; it is of no consequence, for you always remain a Protestant, for you protest against the authority of the Church; your field is so extensive, that you can hardly escape from it, however great may be your wanderings; it contains all the vast extent that we behold on coming forth from the gates of the Holy City. (4) 28 CHAPTER II. CAUSES OF PROTESTANTISM. WIAT, then, were the causes of the appearance of Protestantism in Europe, of its development, and of its success? This is a question well worthy of being examined to the bottom, because it will lead us to inquire into the origin of this great evil, and will put us in a condition to forn the best idea of this phenomenon, so often but so imperfectly described. It would be unreasonable to look for the causes of an event of this nature and importance, in circumstances either trivial in themselves, or circumscribed by places and events of a limited kind. It is a mistake to suppose that vast results can be produced by trifling causes; and if it be true that great events sometimes have their commencement in little ones, it is no less certain that the commencing point is not the cause; and that to be the commencement of a thing, and to be its real cause, are expressions of a widely different meaning. A spark produces a dreadful conflagration, but it is because it falls upon a heap of inflammable materials. That which is general must have general causes; and that which is lasting and deeply rooted must have lasting and profound causes. This law is true alike in the moral as in the physical order; but its applications cannot be perceived without great difficulty, especially in the moral order, where things of great importance are sometimes clothed in a mean exterior; where each effect is found allied with so many causes at once, connected with them by ties so delicate, that, possibly, the most attentive and piercing eye may miss altogether, or regard as a trifle, that which perhaps has produced very great results: trifling things, on the other hand, are frequently so covered with glitter, tinsel, and parade, that it is very easy to be deceived by them. We are always too much inclined to judge by appearances. It will appear from these principles, that I am not disposed to give great importance to the rivalry excited by the preaching of indulgences, or to the excesses which may have been committed by some inferiors in this mafter; these things may have been an occasion, a pretext, a signal to commence the contest, but they were of too little importance in themselves to put the world in flames. There would be, perhaps, more apparent plausibility in seeking for the causes of Protestantism in the characters and positions of the first reformers; but this also would be unsatisfactory. People lay great stress on the violence and fury of the writings and speeches of Luther, and show how apt this savage eloquence was to inflame men's minds, and drag them into the new errors by the deadly hatred against Rome with which it inspired them. Too much stress also is laid on the sophistical art, the order and elegance of the style of Calvin; qualities which served to give an appearance of regularity to the shapeless mass of new errors, and make them more acceptable to men of good taste. The talents and other qualities of the various-innovators are described in the same way with more or less truth. I will not deny to Luther, Calvin, and the other founders of Protestantism, the titles on which their sad celebrity is founded; but I venture to assert that we cannot attribute to their personal qualities the principal influence upon the development of this evil, without palpably mistaking and underrating the importance of the evil itself, and forgetting the instructions of universal history. If we examine these men with impartiality, we shall find that their qualities were not greater than those of other sectarian leaders, if so great. Their talents, their learning, and their knowledge, have passed through the crucible of criticism, and there is, even among Protestants, no well-instructed and impartial person who does not now consider the extravagant eulogiums which have been lavished upon them, as the exaggerations of party. They are classed PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY 29 among the number of those turbulent men who are well fitted to excite revolutions; but the history of all times and countries, and the experience of every day, teach that men of this kind are not uncommon, and that they arise everywhere when a sad combination of events affords them a fit opportunity. When causes more in proportion to Protestantism, by their extent and importance, are sought for, two are commonly pointed out: the necessity of reform, and the spirit of liberty. "There were numerous abuses,' says one party, "legitimate reform was neglected: this negligence produced revolution." "The human intellect was in fetters," says another; " the mind longed to break its chains; Protestantism was only a grand effort for the freedom of human thought, a great movement towards liberating the human mind." It is true, that these two opinions point out causes of great importance and of wide extent: both are well adapted to make partisans. The one, by establishing the necessity of reform, opens a wide field for the censure of neglected laws and relaxed morals; this theme always finds sympathy in the heart of man,-indulgent towards its own defects, but stern and inexorable towards the faults of others. With respect to the other opinion, which raises the cry of the movement of religious liberty and the freedom of the human mind, it is sure to be widely adopted: there are always a thousand echoes to a cry which flatters our pride. I do not deny that a reform was necessary; to be convinced of this, I need snly glance at history, and listen to the complaints of several great men, justly regarded by the Church as among the most cherished of her sons. I read in the first decree of the Councl of Trent, that one of the objects of the Council was the reform of the Christian clergy and people; I learn from the mouth of Pius IV., when confirming the said Council, that one of the objects for which it was assembled, was the correction of morals, and the re-establishment of discipline. Notwithstanding all this, I am not inclined to give to abuses so much influence as has been attributed to them. I must also say, that it appears to me that we give a very bad solution of the question, when, to show the real cause of the evil, we insist on the fatal results produced by these abuses. These words also, "a new movement of liberty," appear to me altogether insufficient. I shall say, then, with freedom, in spite of my respect for those who entertain the first opinion, and my esteem for the talents of those who refer all to the spirit of liberty, that I cannot find in either that analysis, at once philosophical and historical, which, without wandering from the ground of history, examines facts, clears them up, shows their inward naturetheir relations and connections. If men have wandered so much.in the definition and explanation of Protestantismn, it is because they have not sufficiently observed that it is not only a fact common to all ages of the history of the Church, but that its importance and its particular characteristics are owing to the epoch when it arose. This simple consideration, founded on the constant testimony of history, clears up every thing; we have no longer to seek in the doctrines of Protestantism for any thing singular or extraordinary; all its characteristics prove that it was born in Europe, and in the sixteenth century. I shall develope these ideas, not by fanciful reasonings or gratuitous suppositions, but by adducing facts which nobody can deny. It is indisputable that the principle of submission to authority in matters of faith has always encountered a vigorous resistance in the human mind. I shall not point out here the causes of this resistance; I propose to do so in the course of this work; I shall content myself at present with stating this fact, and reminding those who may be inclined to call it in question, that the history of the Church has always been accompanied by the history of heresies. This fact has presented different phases according to the changes of time and place. Sometimes making a rude mixture of Judaism and Christianity, sometimes combining the doctrines of Jesus Christ with the dreams of the East, or cor c2 80 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CA'~HOLICITY. rupting the purity of faith by the subtilties and chicaneries of Grecian sophistry; this fact presents us with as many different aspects as there are conditions of the mind of man. But we always find in it two general characteristics, which clearly show that it has always had the same origin, notwithstanding the variation in its object and in the nature of its results: these two characteristics are, hatred of the authority of the Church, and the spirit of sect. In all ages sects have arisen, opposing the authority of the Church, and esta. blishing as dogmas the errors of their founders: it was natural for the same thing to happen in the sixteenth century. Now, if that age had been an exception to the general rule, it seems to me, looking at the nature of the human mind, that we should have had to answer this very difficult question, How is it possible that no sect appeared in that age? I say, then, error having once arisen in the sixteenth century, no matter what may have been its origin, occasion, and pretext-a certain number of followers having assembled around its banner-Protestantisin forthwith presents itself before me in all its extent, with its transcendent importancb, its divisions, and subdivisions; I see it, with boldness and energy, making a general attack on all the doctrines and discipline taught and observed by the Church. In place of Luther, Zuinglius, and Calvin, let us suppose Arius, Nestorius, and Pelagius; in placeof the errors of the former, let them teach the errors of the latter; it will all lead to the same result. The errors will excite sympathy; they will find defenders; they will animate enthusiasts; they will spread, they will be propagated with the rapidity of fire, they will be diffused, they will throw sparks in all directions; they will all be defended with a show of knowledge and erudition; creeds will change unceasingly; a thousand professions of faith will be drawn up; the liturgy will be altered,-will be destroyed; the bonds of discipline will be broken; we shall have to sum up all in one word, Protestantism. How did it happen that the evil in the sixteenth century was necessarily so extensive, so great, and so important? It was because the society of that time was different from any other that had preceded it; that which at other times would only have produced a partial fire, necessarily caused in the sixteenth century a frightful conflagration. Europe was then composed of a number of immense states, cast, so to speak, in the same mould, resembling each other in ideas, manners, laws and institutions, drawn together incessantly by an active communication which was kept up alternately by rival and common interests; knowledge found in the Latin language an easy means of diffusion; in fine, most important of all, there had become general over all Europe a rapid means of disseminating ideas and feelings, a creation which. had flashed from the human mind like a miraculous illumination, a presage of colossal destinies, viz. the press. Such is the activity of the mind of man, and the ardour with which it embraces all sorts of innovation, that when once the standard of error was planted, a multitude of partisans were sure to rally round it. The yoke of authority once thrown off, in countries where investigation was so active, where so many discussions were carried on, where ideas were in such a state of effervescence, and where all the sciences began to germinate, it was impossible for the restless mind of man to remain fixed on any point, and a swarm of sects was necessarily produced. There is no middle path; either civilized nations must remain Catholic, or run through all the forms of error. If they do not attach themr selves firmly to the anchor of truth, we shall see them make a general attack upon it, we shall see them assail it in itself, in all that it teaches, in all that it prescribes. A man of free and active mind will remain tranquil in the peaceful regions of truth, or he will seek for it with restlessness and disquietude. If he find only false principles to rest on,-if he feel the ground move under his feet, he will change his position every moment, he will leap from error to'error, PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 31 and precipitate himself from one abyss to another. To live amid errors: and be contented with them, to transmit error from generation to generation, without modification or change, is peculiar to those who vegetate in debasement and ignorance; there the mind of man is not active, because it is asleep. From the point of view where we have now placed ourselves, we can see Protestantism such as it is. From this commanding position we see every thing in its place, and it is possible for us to appreciate its dimensions, to perceive its relations, calculate its influence, and explain its anomalies. Men there assume their true position; as they are seen in close proximity with the great mass of events, they appear in the picture as very small figures, for which others may be substituted without inconvenience; which may be placed nearer or farther off, and the features and complexion of which are not of any consequence. Of what importance, then, are the energy of character, the passion, and boldness of Luther, the literary polish of Melancthon, and the sophistical talents of Calvin? We are convinced, that to lay stress upon all this, is to lose our time, and explain nothing. What were these men, and the other coryphaei of Protestantism? Was there any thing really extraordinary about them? We shall find men like them everywhere. There are some among them who did not surpass mediocrity; and it may be said of almost all, that if they had not obtained an unhappy celebrity, they would hardly have been celebrated at all. Why, then, did they effect such great things? Tley found a mass of combustibles, and they set them on tire. Certainly this was not difficult, and yet it was all they did. When I see Luther, mad with pride, commit those extravagances which were the' subject of so many lamentations on the part of his friends-when I see him grossly insult all who oppose him, put himself in a passion, and vomit forth a torrent of impure words against all those who do not humble themselves in his presence, I am scarcely moved by any other feeling than pity. This man, who had the extraordinary mania of calling himself the Notharius Dei, became delirious; but he breathed, and his breath was followed by a terrible conflagration: it was because a powder-magazine was at hand on which he threw a spark. Nevertheless, like a man blinded by insanity, he cried out, " Behold my power! I breathe, and my breath puts the world in flames!" But, you will ask me, what was the real influence of abuses? If we take care not to leave the point of view where we now are, we shall see that they were an occasion, and that they sometimes afforded food, but that they did not exercise all the influence which has been attributed to them. Do I wish, then, to deny, or to excuse them? Not at all. I can appreciate the complaints of some men, who are worthy of the most profound respect; but while lamenting the evil, these men never pretended to detail the consequences. The just man when he raises his voice against vice, the minister of the sanctuary when he is burning with zeal for the house of the Lord, express themselves in accents so loud and vehement, that they must not always be taken literally. Their whola hearts are opened, and, inflamed as they are with a zealous love of justice, they make use of burning words. Men without faith interpret their expressions maliciously, exaggerating and misrepresenting them. It appears to me to be clear, from what I have just shown, that the principal cause of Protestantism is not to be found in the abuses of the middle ages. All that can be said is, that they afforded opportunities and pretexts for it. To assert the contrary would be to maintain that there were always numerous abuses in the Church from the beginning, even in the time of her primitive fervor, and of that proverbial purity of which our opponents have said so much; for even then there were swarms of sects who protested against her doctrines, denied her divine authority, and called themselves the true Church. The case i.i the same, and the inference cannot be denied. If you allege the extent and 82 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITI CATHOLICITY. rapid propagation of Protestantism, I will remind you that such was also the case with other sects; I will repeat to you the words of St. Jerome, with regard to the ravages of Arianism: " All the world groans, and is full of astonishment at finding itself Arian." I will repeat, again, that if you observe any thing remarkable and peculiar belonging to Protestantism, it ought not to be attributed to abuses, but to the epoch when it appeared. I believe I have said enough to give an idea of the influence which abuses could exert; yet, as it is a subject which has occupied much attention, and on which many mistakes have been made, it will be well to revert to it once more, to make our ideas on the subject still clearer. That lamentable abuses had crept in during the course of the middle ages, that the corruption of manners had been great, and that, consequently, reform was required, is a fact which cannot be denied. This fact is proved to us, with respect to the eleventh and twelfth centuries, by irreproachable witnesses, such as St. Peter Damien, St. Gregory VII., and St. Bernard. Some centuries later, even after many abuses had been corrected, they were still but too considerable, as is witnessed by the complaints of men who were inflamed with a desire of reform. We cannot forget the alarming words addressed by Cardinal Julian to Pope Eugenius IV., on the subject of the disorders of the clergy, especially those of Germany. Having fully avowed the truth on this point, and my opinion that the cause of Catholicity does not require dissimulation or falsehood to defend it, I shall devote a few words to examining some important questions. Are we to blame the court of Rome or the bishops for these great abuses? I venture to think that they were to be attributed to the evils of the time alone. Let us call to mind the events which had taken place in the midst of Europe; the dissolution of the decrepit and corrupt empire of Rome; the irruption and inundation of northern barbarians; their fluctuations, their wars, sometimes with each other, and sometimes with the conquered nations, and that for so many ages; the. establishment and absolute reign of feudalism, with all its inconveniences, its evils, its troubles, and disasters; the invasion of the Saracens, and their dominion over a large portion of Europe; now, let any reflecting man ask himself whether such revolutions must not of necessity produce ignorance, corruption of morals, and the relaxation of all discipline. Hlow could the ecclesiastical society escape being deeply affected by this dissolution, this destruction of the civil society? Could she help participating in the evils of the horrible state of chaos into which Europe was then plunged? But were the spirit and ardent desire of reforming abuses ever wanting in'the Church? It can be shown that they were not. I will not mention the saints whom she did not cease to produce during these unhappy periods; history proves their number and their virtues, which, so vividly contrasting with the corruption of the age, show that the divine flames which descended on the Apostles had not been extinguished in the bosom of the Catholic Church. This fact proves much; but there is another still more remarkable, a fact less subject to dispute, and which we cannot be accused of exaggerating; a fact which is not limited to individuals, but which is, on the contrary, the most complete expression of the spirit by which the whole body of the Church was animated; I mean, the constant meeting of councils, in which abuses were reproved and condemned, and in which sanctity of morals and the observance of discipline were continually inculcated. Happily this consoling fact is indisputable; it is open to every eye; and to be aware of it, one only needs to consult a volume of ecclesiastical history, or the proceedings of councils. There is no fact more worth our attention; and I will add, that perhaps all its importance has not been observed. Let us remark what passes in other societies: we see that in proportion to tho change of ideas and manners, laws everywhere undergo a rapid modification; PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. oo and if manners and ideas come to be directly opposed to laws, the latter, reduced to silence, are soon either abolished or trodden under foot. Nothing of this sort has happened in the Church. Corruption has extended itself everywhere to a lamentable degree; the ministers of religion have allowed themselves to be carried away by the stream, and have forgotten the sanctity of their vocation; but the sacred tire did not cease to burn in the sanctuary; the law was there constantly proclaimed and inculcated; and, wonderful spectacle! the men who themselves violated it frequently assembled to condemn themselves, to censure their own conduct, and thus to render more public and more palpable the contrast which existed between their instructions and their actions. Simony and incontinence were the prevailing vices; if you open the canons of councils, you will find them everywhere anathematized Nowhere do you find a struggle so prolonged, so constant, so persevering, of ixMht against wrong; you always see, throughout so many ages, the law, opposed face to face to the irregular passions, maintain itself firm and immovable, without yielding a single step, without allowing them a moment of repose or pcce until they were subjugated. And this constancy and tenacity of the Church v'rere not useless. At the commencement of the sixteenth century, at the tinsm when Protestantism appeared, we find abuses comparatively less numerous, morals perceptibly improved, discipline become more strict, and observed with sufficient regularity. The time when Luther declaimed was not like that when St. Peter Damien and St. Bernard deplored the evils of the Church. The chaos was reduced to form; order, olght, and regularity had made rapid progress; and an incontestable proof that the Church was not then plunged in such ignorance and corruption as is alleged, is, that she produced the great assemblage of saints who shed so much lustre on the age, and the men who displayed their eminent wisdom at the Council of Trent. Let us remember that great reforms require much time, that they met with much resistance both from the clergy and laity; that for having undertaken them with firmness, and urged them with vigour, Gregory VII. has been charged with rashness. Let us not judge of men without regard to times and places; and let us not pretend to measure every thing according to our own limited ideas; ages move in an immense orbit, and the variety of circumstances produces situations so strange and complicated that we can hardly form an idea of them. Bossuet, in his History of the Variations, after having differently classed the spirit which guided certain men, before the thirteenth century, in their attempts at reform, and having cited the threatening words of Cardinal Julian on the subject of abuses, adds: "It is thus that, in the fifteenth century, this cardinal, the greatest man of his times, deplored these evils, and foresaw their fatal effects; by which he seems to have predicted those that Luther was about to bring on all Christianity, and in the first place on Germany; and be was not deceived when he thought that the neglect of reformation, and the increased hatred against the clergy, was about to produce a sect more dangerous to the Church than the Bohemians." (Hist. des Variat. liv. i.) It is inferred from these words that the illustrious Bishop of Meaux found one of the principal causes of Protestantism in the omission of a legitimate reform made in time. Nevertheless, we must not suppose from this that Bossuet meant, in any degree, to excuse the promoters of it,'or that he had any idea of sanctioning their intentions; on the contrary, he ranked them as turbulent innovators, who, far from promoting the real reform which was desired by wise and prudent men, only served to render it more difficult, by introducing, by the means of their erroneous doctrines, the spirit of disobedience, schism, and heresy. In spite of the authority of Bossuet, I cannot persuade myself to look upon abuses as one of the principal causes of Protestantism; but it is not necessary to repeat what I have said in support of this opinion. It may not, however, 5 31 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. be. useless to repeat, that the authority of Bossuet is misapplied when used to justify the intentions of the reformers, since the illustrious prelate is the first to declare them highly culpable, and to observe, that if abuses were in existence, their intention was not to correct them, but rather to make them a pretext for abandoning the faith of the Church, throwing off the yoke of lawful authority, breaking the bands of discipline, and introducing thereby disorder and licentiousness. How, indeed, can we attribute to the reformers the real spirit of reform, when almost all of them proved the contrary by the ignominy of their own conduct? If they had condemned, by the austerity of their morals, or by devoting themselves to a severe asceticism, the relaxations of which they complained, there might be a question whether their extravagances were not the effects of exaggerated zeal, and if some excess in the love of virtue had not drawn them into error. But they did nothing of the kind. Let us hear on this point an eye-witness, a man who certainly cannot be accused of fanaticism, since the connection which he had with the leaders of Protestantism has rendered him culpable in the eyes of many. Behold what Erasmus said, with his usual wit and bitterness: " The reform, as far as it has gone, has been limited to the secularization of a few nuns and the marriage of a few priests; and this great tragedy finishes with an event altogether comic, since every thing is wound up, as in comedies, by a marriage." This shows to conviction the true spirit of the innovators of the sixteenth century. It is clear that, far from wishing the reformation of abuses, they wished rather to increase them. This bare consideration of facts has led M. Guizot, on this point, into the path of truth, when he rejects the opinion of *those who pretend, that the Reformation was " an attempt conceived and exe-, cuted simply with the intention of reconstructing a pure and primitive Church. The Reformation," he said, " was not a mere attempt at religious amelioration, or the fruit of a Utopian humanity and virtue." (Histoire Gdnerale de la Civilisation en Europe, douzieme legon.) We shall have now no difficulty in appreciating at its just value the explanation which the same writer gives of this phenomenon. "The Reformation," says M. Guizot, "was a great attempt at the liberation of human thought-an uprising of the mind of man." This attempt, according to M. Guizot, arose out of the energetic movement given to the human mind, and the state of inaction into which the Roman Church had fallen; it arose from this, that the human mind advanced rapidly and impetuously, while the Church remained stationary. Explanations of this kind, and this one in particular, are very apt to draw admirers and proselytes; these ideas are high, and placed on a level so lofty and extended, that they cannot be looked at closely by the generality of readers; and, moreover, they appear in brilliant imagery, which blinds the sight and prejudices the judgment. That which restrains freedom of thought, as understood by M. Guizot and other Protestants is, authority in matters of faith: it was, then, against this authority that the uprising of the mind declared itself; or, in other words, the mind rebelled, because it advanced, while the Church, immovable in her doctrines, was, according to the expression of M. Guizot, "in a stationary state." Whatever may be the disposition of mind of M. Guizot. towards the dogmas of the Catholic Church, he ought, as a philosopher, to have seen that it was a great mistake to point out as the distinctive characteristic of one period, that which had been at every time a glorious title for the Church. For more than eighteen hundred years the Church has been stationary in her dogmas, and it is no equivocal proof that she possesses the truth: the truth is unchangeable, tecause it is one. What the Church was.in the sixteenth century, she had been before, and she PRCTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 3 has lbeen since. She had nothing particular, she adopted no new characteristic. The reason, then, by which it is attempted to explain this phenomenon, viz. the uprising of the mind, cannot advance the explanation a single step; and if this be the reason why M. Guizot compares the Church to governments grown old, we will tell him that she has had this old age from her cradle. M. Guizot,as if he had himself felt the weakness of his reasoning, presents his thoughts in groups, and as it were pele-mele; he parades before his readers ideas of different kinds, without taking pains to classify or distinguish them; one would he inclined to think that he meant to distract them by variety, and confound them by mixture. Judging, indeed, from the context of his discourse, the epithets inert and stationary, which he applies to the Church, do not appear, according to his intention, to relate to matters of faith; and he gives us to understand that he speaks rather of the pretensions of the Church with regard to politics and state economy. He has taken pains, elsewhere, to repel as calumnies, the charges of tyranny and intolerance which have been so often made against the court of Rome. We find here an incoherence of ideas which was not to be expected in so clear a mind; and as many persons may scarcely be inclined to believe how far this incoherence extends, it is necessary to give his words literally: they will show us into what inconsistencies great minds can fall when they are placed in a false position. " The government of the human mind, the spiritual power," says M. Guizot, "had fallen into an inert and stationary condition. The political influence of the Church, of the court of Rome, was much diminished; European society no longer was ruled by it; it had passed under the control of lay governments. Nevertheless, the spiritual power preserved all its pretensions, all its slat, all its external importance. There happened in this respect, what has more than once happened to old governments. The greater part of the complaints made against it were hardly better founded." It is evident that M. Guizot, in this passage, does not point out any thing which is at all connected with liberty, any thing which is not quite of another kind: why does he not do so? The court of Rome, he tells us, had seen its political influence diminished, and yet it preserved its pretensions; the direction of European society no longer-belonged to it, but Rome kept its pomp and its external importance. Is any thing here meant besides the rivalries of which political affairs had been the subject? Did M. Guizot forget what he himself said some pages before, viz. that it did not appear to him to be reasonable to assign the rivalry of kings with the ecclesiastical power as the cause of Protestantism, and that such a cause was not adequate to the extent and importance of the event? Although all this has no direct connection with freedom of thought, still, if any one be inclined to attribute the uprising of the mind to the intolerance of the court of Rome, let him listen to M. Guizot:."It is not true," says he, "that in the sixteenth century the court of Rome was very tyrannical; that abuses, properly so called, were then more numerous, more crying, than they had been at other times; never, perhaps, on the contrary, had the ecclesiastical power been more easy, more tolerant, more disposed to let things go their own way. Provided that it was not itself called in question, provided that the rights which it had formerly enjoyed were allowed in theory, that the same existence was secured, and the same tributes were paid to it, it would willingly have allowed the human mind to remain at peace, if the human mind had done the same in respect to it." Thus M. Guizot seems to have forgotten what he had urged with the view of showing that the Protestant Reformation was a great attempt at the liberation of human thought-a rebellion of the mind of man. He does not allege j3G PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. any thing which was an obstacle to the freedom of man's thoughts; and hi himself acknowledges that there was nothing to provoke this rebellion, as, for example, intolerance or cruelty; he has himself just told us that the ecclesiaktical government of the sixteenth century, far from being tyrannical, was easy and tolerant, and that, if left to itself, it would willingly have allowed the human mind to remain tranquil. It is, then, evident, that the great attempt at the liberation of the human mind is, in M. Guizot's mouth, only a vague, undefined expression,-a brilliant veil with which he seems to have wished to cover the cradle of Protestantism, even at the risk of being inconsistent with his own opinions. He reverts to the political rivalries which he before rejected. Abuses have no importance in his eyes; he cannot find in them the real cause; and he forgets what he had just asserted in the preceding lecture, viz. that if necessary reform had been made in time, the religious revolution might have been avoided. He tries to give a picture of the obstacles to the liberty of thought, and endeavours to rise to the general considerations which embrace all the importance and influences of the human mind; but he stops at eclat, at external importance, and political rivalries; he lowers his flight to the level of tributes and services. This incoherence of ideas, this weakness of reasoning, and forgetfulness of assertions previously made, will appear strange only to those who are accustomed rather to admire the high flights of talented men than to study their aberrations. It is true that M. Guizot was in a position in which it was very difficult to avoid being dazzled and deceived. If it be true that we cannot observe attentively what passes on the ground around us without narrowing our view of the horizon,-if this method leads the observer to form a collection of isolated facts rather than compare general maxims, it is not less certain that, by extending our observations over a larger space, we run the risk of many illusions. Too great generalization borders on hypothesis and fancy. The mind, when taking an immoderate flight in order to get a general view of things, no longer sees them as they really are; perhaps sometimes even loses sight of them altogether. Therefore it is that the loftiest minds should frequently remember the words of Bacon: "We do not want wings, but lead." Too impartial not to confess that abuses had been exaggerated,-too good a philosopher not to see that they could not have had so great an effect, —M. Guizot, who was prevented by his sense of dignity and decency from joining the crowd who incessantly raise the cry of cruelty and intolerance, has made an effort to do justice to the Church of Rome; but, unfortunately, his prejudices against the Church, would not allow him to see things in their true light. He was aware that the origin of Protestantism must be sought in the human mind itself; but, knowing the age and epoch when he was speaking, he thought it was necessary to propitiate his audience by frequent appeals to liberty, in order that his discourse might be well received. This is the reason why, after having tempered the bitterness of his reproaches against the Church by a few soft words, he reserves all that is noble, grand, and generous for the ideas which produced the Reformation, and throws on the Church all the shadows of the picture. While acknowledging that the principal cause of Protestantism is to be found in the human mind, it is easy to abstain from these unjust comparisons; and M. Guizot might have avoided the inconsistency to which we have alluded. He might have discovered the origin of the fact in the character of the human mind; he might, at the same time, have shown the greatness and importance of it, while simply explaining the nature and position of the societies in which it appeared. IIn fine, he might have observed that it was no extraordinary effort, but a mere repetition of what has happened in every age; and a pheno. PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 8 T menon, the character of which depended on the particular state of the atmosphere in which it was produced. This way of considering Protestantism as an ordinary event, increased and developed by the circumstances in which it arose, appears to me to be as philosophical as it is little attended to. I shall support it by another observation, which will supply us with reasons and examples at the same time. The state of modern society for three hundred years has been such, that all the events that have occurred have acquired a character of generalization, and consequently an importance, which distinguishes them from all the events of a similar kind which occurred at other times and in a different social state. If we examine the history of antiquity, we shall see that all the events therein occurring were isolated in some sort from each other; this. was what rendered them less beneficial when they were good, and less injurious when they were bad. Carthage, Rome, Sparta, Athens, all these nations more or less advanced in the career of civilization, each followed its own path, and progressed in a different way. Ideas, manners, political constitutions, succeeded each other, without our being able to perceive any influence of the ideas of one nation on those of another, or of the manners of one nation on those of another; we do not find any evidence of a tendency to bring nations to one common centre. We also remark that, except when forced to intermix, ancient nations could be a long time in close proximity without losing their peculiarities, or suffering any important change by the contact. Observe how different is the state of things in Europe in modern times..A revolution in one country affects all others; an idea sent forth from the schools agitates nations and alarms governments. Nothing is isolated, every thing is general, and acquires by expansion a terrible force. It is impossible to study the history of one nation without seeing all the others make their appearance on the stage; and we cannot study the history of a science'or an art without discovering a thousand connections with objects which do not belong to science or to art. All nations are connected, objects are assimilated, relations increase. The affairs of one nation are interesting to all the others, and they wish to take part in them. This is the reason why the idea of non-intervention in politics is, and always will be, impracticable; it is, indeed, natural for us to interfere in that in which we are interested. These examples, although taken from things of a different kind, appear to me very well calculated to illustrate my idea of the religious events of that period. Protestantism, it is true, is thereby stripped of the philosophic mantle by which it has been covered from its infancy; it loses all right to be considered as full of foresight, magnificent projects, and high destinies, from its cradle; but I do not see that its importance and extent are thereby diminished; the fact itself, in a word, is unimpaired, but the real cause of the imposing aspect in which it has.presented itself to the world is explained. Every thing, in this point of view, is seen in its just dimensions; individuals are scarcely perceived, and abuses appear only what they really are — opportunities and pretexts; vast plans, lofty and generous ideas, and efforts at independence of mind, are only gratuitous suppositions. Thence ambition, wai, the rivalry of kings, take their position as causes more or less influential, but always in the second rank.. All the causes are estimated at their real value; in fine, the principal causes being once pointed out, it is acknowledged that the fact was sure to be accompanied in its development by a multitude of subordinate agents. There remains still an important question in this matter, viz. what was the cause of the hatred, or rather the feeling of exasperation, on the part of sectarians against Rome? Was it owing to some great abuse, some great wrong on the part of Rome? There is but one answer to make, viz. tb at D 8 ~8 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. in a storm, the waves always dash with fury against the immovable rock which resists them. So far from attributing to abuses all the influence which has been assigned to them on the birth and development of Protestantism, I am convinced, on the contrary, that all imaginable legitimate reforms, and the greatest degree of willingness on the part of the Church authorities to comply with every exigence, would not have been able to prevent that unhappy event. He has paid little attention to the extreme inconstancy and fickleness of the human mind, and studied its history to little purpose, who does not recognise in the event of the sixteenth century one of those great calamities which God alone can avert by a special intervention of his providence. (5) CHAPTER III. EXTRAORDINARY PHENOMENON IN THE CATHOLIC CIURCH. THE proposition contained in the concluding lines of the last chapter suggests a corollary, which, if I am not mistaken, offers a new demonstration of the divine origin of the Catholic Church. Her existence for eighteen centuries, in spite of so many powerful adversaries, has always been regarded as a most extraordinary thing. Another prodigy, too little attended to, and of not less importance when the nature of the human mind is taken into account, is, the unity of the Church's doctrines, pervading, as it does, all her various instructions, and the number of great minds which this unity has always enclosed within her bosom. I particularly call the attention of all thinking men to this point; and although I cannot hope to develope this idea in a suitable manner, I am sure they will find in it matter for very serious reflection. This method of considering the Church may perhaps recommend itself to the taste of some readers on another account, viz. because I shall lay aside Revelation, in order to consider Catholicity, not as a Divine religion, but as a school of philosophy. No one who has studied the history of letters can deny that the Church has, in all ages, possessed men illustrious for science. The history of the Fathers of the first ages of the Church is nothing but the history of the most learned men in Europe, in Africa, and in Asia; the list of learned men who preserved, after the irruption of the Barbarians, some remains of ancient knowledge, is composed of churchmen. In modern times you cannot point out a branch of human knowledge, in which a considerable number of Catholics have not figured in the first rank. Thus there has been, for eighteen hundred years, an uninterrupted chain of learned men, who were Catholics, that is, men united in the profession of the doctrines taught by the Catholic Church. Let us lay aside for a moment the divine characteristics of Catholicity, to consider it only as a school or sect; I say, that in the fact which I have pointed out, we find a phenomenon so extraordinary, that its equal cannot be found elsewhere, and that no effort of reason can explain it, according to the natural order of human things. It is certainly not new in the history of the human mind for a doctrine, more or less reasonable, to be professed for a time by a certain number of learned and enlightened men; this has been shown in schools of philosophy both ancient and modern. But for a creed to maintain itself for many ages, by preserving the adhesion of men of learning of all times and of all countries-of minds differing among themselves on other points-of men opposed in interests and divided by rivalries, is a phenomenon new, unique, and not to be found anywhere but in the Catholic Church. It always has been, and still is, the practice PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 39 of the Church, while one in faith and doctrine, to teach unceasingly-to excite discussion on all subjects-to promote the study and examination of the foundations on which faith itself reposes-to scrutinize for this purpose the ancient languages, the monuments of the remotest times, the documents of history, the discoveries of scientific observation, the lessons of the highest and most analytic sciences, and to present herself with a generous confidence in the great lyceums, where men replete with talents and knowledge concentrate, as in a focus, all that they have learned from their predecessors, and all that they themselves have collected: and nevertheless we see her always persevere with firmness in her faith and in the unity of her doctrines; we see her always surrounded by illustrious men, who, with their brows crowned with the laurels of a hundred literary contests, humble themselves, tranquil and serene, before her, without fear of dimming the brightness of the glory which surrounds their heads. We ask those who see in Catholicity only one of the innumerable sects by which the earth has been covered, to point out elsewhere a similar fact; to explain to us how the Church has been able to show us a phenomenon, constantly existing, so opposed to the ever-varying spirit of the human mind; let them tell us by what secret talisman the Sovereign Pontiffs have been able to do what other men have found impossible. Those men, who bowed their heads at the command of the Vatican, who have laid aside their own opinions to adopt those of a man called the Pope, were not simple and ignorant men. Look at them attentively; you will see in the boldness of their mien their knowledge of their own intellectual power; you will read in their bright and penetrating eyes the flame of genius which burns in their breasts. They are the same men who have.filled the highest places in the academies of Europe; who have spread their fame over the world, and whose names have been handed down to future generations. Examine the history of all ages, search all the countries of the world, and if you find anywhere such an extraordinary combination of knowledge in union with faith, of genius in submission to authority, and of discussion without breach of unity, you will have made an important discovery, and science will have to explain a new phenomenon. But you know well that you cannot do so. This is the reason why you have recourse to new stratagems in order to cast a shade on the brightness of this fact; for you feel that impartial reason and common sense must draw from it the conclusion that there is in the Catholic Church something which is not to be found elsewhere. These facts, say our adversaries, are certain; the reflections which they suggest are dazzling at first sight; but if we examine the subject thoroughly, we shall see the difficulties they raise disappear. This phenomenon, which we have seen realized in the Catholic Church, and which is not found elsewhere, only proves that there has always been in the Church a fixed system, which has been developed with uniform regularity. The Church knew that union is the. source of strength; that union cannot exist without unity of doctrine; and that unity cannot be preserved without submission to authority. This simple observation established, and constantly maintained, the principle of submission. Such is the explanation of the phenomenon. The idea, we grant, is profoundly wise, the scheme is grand, the system is extraordinary; but they do not prove any thing in favor of the Divine origin of Catholicism. This is the best reply which they can make; it is easy to show that the difficulty remains entire. Indeed, if it be true that there has existed a society on earth which has been for eighteen centuries guided by one fixed and constant principle-a society which has known how to bind to this principle eminent men of all ages and countries, the following questions must be asked of our adversaries: —Why has the Church alone possessed this principle, and monopolized this idea? If other sects have been in possession of it, why have they not acted on it? All the philosophic sects have disappeared, one after another; 40 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. the Church alone remains. Other religions, in order to preserve some sort of unity, have been compelled to shun the light, to avoid discussion, to hide thenm selves in the thickest shades. Why has the Church preserved her unity while seeking the light, while publishing her books in open day, while lavishing all sorts of instruction, and founding everywhere colleges, universities, and establishments of every description, where all the splendor of knowledge and erudition has been concentrated;? It is not enough to say that there was a plan-a system; the difficulty lies in the existence of this plan and this system; it consists in explaining how they were conceived and executed. If we had to do with a small number of men, in limited circumstances, times, and countries, for the execution of a limited project, there would be nothing extraordinary; but we have to do with a period of eighteen hundred years, with all the countries of the world, with circumstances the most varied, the most different, and the most opposed to each other; we have to do with a multitude of men who did not meet together, or act in concert. How is all this to be explained? If it were a plan and a system devised by man, we should ask, What was the mysterious power of Rome which enabled her to unite around her so many illustrious men of all times and of all countries? How did the Roman Pontiff, if he be only the chief of a sect, manage to fascinate the world to this extent? What magician ever did such wonders? Men have long declaimed against his religious despotism; why has no one been found to wrest the sceptre from his grasp? why has not a pontifical throne been raised capable of disputing the pre-eminence with his, and of maintaining itself with equal splendor and power? Shall we attribute it to his temporal power? This power is very limited. Rome was not able to contend in arms with any of the other European powers. Shall we attribute it to the peculiar character, to the knowledge or the virtues of the men who have occupied the Papal throne? There has been, during these eighteen hundred years, an infinite variety in the characters and in the talents and virtues of the Popes. For those who are not Catholics, who do not see in the Roman Pontiff the vicar of Jesus Christ, —te rock on which He has built His Church,-the duration of this authority must be the most extraordinary phenomenon; and it is certainly one of the questions most worthy of being examined by the science which devotes itself to the history of the human mind; how there existed for many centuries an uninterrupted series of learned men, always faithful to the doctrines of the Roman See? M. Guizot himself, in comparing Protestantism with the Roman Church, seems to have felt the force of this truth; and its light appears to have made him confused in his remarks. Let us listen again to this writer, whose talents and renown have dazzled, on this point, so many readers, who do not examine the solidity of proofs when they are clothed in brilliant images, and who applaud all kinds of ideas when they are conveyed to them in a torrent of enchanting eloquence; men who, pretending to intellectual independence, subscribe, without inquiry, to the decisions of the leaders of their school; who receive their doctrines with submission, and dare not even raise their heads to ask for the titles of their authority. M. Guizot, like all the great men among Protestants, was aware of the immense void which exists amid its various sects, and of the force and vigour which is contained in Catholicity; he has not been able to free himself from the rule of great minds,-a rule which is explicitly confirmed by the writings of the greatest men of the Reformation. After pointing out the inconstant progress of Protestantism, and the error which it has introduced into the organization of intellectual society, M. Guizot proceeds thus: "People have not known how to reconcile the rights and necessities of tradition with those of liberty; and the cause of it undoubtedly has been, that the Refermation did not fully understand and accept either its principles or itS PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 41 effects." Vhat sort of a religion must that be which does not fully understand and accept its principles or its effects? Did a more formal condemnation of the Reformation ever issue out of the mouth of man? could any thing of the kind ever Le said of the sects of philosophers, ancient or modern? Can the Reformation, then, after this, pretend to direct men or society? Thence arises," continues M. Guizot, "a certain air of inconsistency and narrowness of spirit, which has often given advantages over it to its opponents. The latter knew very well what they did and what they wished; they ascended to the principles of their conduct, and avowed all their consequences. There never was a government more consistent, more systematic than that of the Church of Rome." But whence was the origin of a system so consistent? When we consider the fickleness and inconstancy of the human mind, do not this system, this consistency, and these fixed principles, speak volumes to the philosopher and man of good sense? We have observed those terrible elements of dissolution which have their source in the mind of man, and which have acquired so much force in modern society; we have seen with what fatal power they destroy and annihilate all institutions, social, political, and religious, without ever succeeding in making a breach in the doctrines of Catholicity,-without altering that system, so fixed and so consistent. Is there no conclusion to be drawn from all this in favour of Catholicity? To say that the Church has done that which no schools, or governments, or societies, or religions could do, is it not to confess that she is wiser than every thing human? And does it not clearly prove that she does not owe her origin to human thought, and that she is derived from the bosom of the Creator? This society-formed, you say, by men —this government, directed by men, has endured for eighteen hundred years; it extends to all countries, it addresses the savage in the forest, the barbarian in his tent, the civilized man in the most populous cities; it reckons among its children the shepherd clothed in skins, the laborer, the powerful nobleman; it makes its laws heard alike by the simple mechanic at his work, and the man of learning in his closet absorbed in the profoundest speculations. This government has always had, according to M. Guizot, a full knowledge of its actions and its wishes; it has always been consistent in its conduct. Is not this avowal its most convincing apology, its most eloquent panegyric; and shall it not be considered a proof that it contains within itself something more than human? A thousand times have I beheld this prodigy with astonishment; a thousand times have my eyes been fixed upon that immense tree which extends its branches from east to west, from north to south; I see beneath its shade a multitude of different nations, and the restless genius of man reposing in tranqtillity at its feet. In the East, at the period when this divine religion first appeared, I see, amidst the dissolutions of all sects, the most illustrious philosophers crowd to hear her words. In Greece, in Asia, on the banks of the Nile, in all the countries where, a short time before, swarmed innumerable sects, I see appear on a sudden a generation of. great men, abounding in learning, in knowledge, in eloquence, and all agreeing in the unity of Catholic doctrine. In the West, a multitude of barbarians throw themselves on an empire falling to decay; a dark cloud descends upon an horizon charged with calamities and disasters; there, in the midst of a people submerged in the corruption of morals, and having lost even the remembrance of their ancient grandeur, I see the only men who can be called worthy heirs of the Roman name, seek, in the retirement of their temples, an asylum for the austerity of their morals; it is there that they preserve, increase, and enrich the treasure of ancient knowledge. But my admiration reaches its height, wheh I observe that sublime intellect, worthy heir of the genius of Plato, which, after having sought the truth in all 6 D2 42 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. the schools, in all the sects, and;with indomitable boldness run through all human errors, feels itself subjugated by the authority of the Church, and transforms the freethinker into the great Bishop of Hippo. In modern times the series of great men who shone in the times of Leo X. and Louis XIV. passes before my eyes. I see the illustrious race still continue throughout the calamities of the eighteenth century; and in the nineteenth I see fresh heroes, who, after having followed error in all directions, come to hang their trophies at the gates of the Catholic Church. What, then, is this prodigy? Has a sect or religion like it ever before been seen? These men study every thing, dispute on every thing, reply to every thing, know every thing; but always agreeing in unity of doctrine, they bend their noble and intellectual brows in respectful obedience to faith. Do we not seem to behold another planetary system, where globes of fire revolve in their vast orbits in the midst of imn,Imsity, always drawn to their centre by a mysterious attraction?. That central force, which allows no aberration, takes from them nothing of their extent, or of the grandeur of their movement; but it inundates them with light, while giving to their motion a more majestic regularity. (6) CHAPTER IV. PROTESTANTISM AND THE MIND. THIS fixedness of idea, this unanimity of will, this wisdom and constancy of plan, this progress with a firm step towards a definite object and end; and, in fine, this admirable unity, acknowledged in favor of Catholicism by M. Guizot himself, have not been imitated by Protestantism, either in good or evil. Protestantism, indeed, has not a single idea, of which it can say: " This is my own." It has attempted to appropriate to itself the principle of private judgment in matters of faith; and if several of its opponents have been too willing to accord it, it was because they were unable to find therein any other constitutive element; it was also because they felt that Protestantism, in boasting of having given birth to such a principle, labored to throw disgrace on itself, like a father who boasts of having unworthy and depraved sons. It is false, however, that Protestantism produced this principle of private judgment, since it was itself the offspring of that principle. That principle, before the Reformation, was formed in the bosom of all sects; it is the real germ of all errors; in proclaiming it, Protestants only yielded to a necessity which is common to all thni sects separated from the Church. There was therein no plan, no foresight, no system. The mere resistance to the authority of the Church included the necessity of unlimited private judgment, and the establishment of the understanding as supreme judge; even had the coryphei of Protestantism wished from the first to oppose the consequences and applications of this right, the barrier was broken, and the torrent could not have been confined. " The right of examining what we ought to believe,"' says a celebrated Protestant, (Germany, by Mad. de Stael, part iv. chap. 2), " is the foundation of Protestantism. The first Reformers did not think thus; they thought themselves able to place the pillars of Hercules of the mind according to their own lights; but they were mistaken in hoping to make those who had rejected all authority of this kind in the Catholic religion submit to their decisions as infallible." This resistance on their part proves, that they were not led by any of those ideas, which, although erroneous, show, in some measure, nobleness and generosity of heart, and that it is not of them that the human mind can say: "' They have erred, but it was in order to give me more liberty of action." PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHIOLICITY. 43 ".The religious revolution of the sixteenth century," says M. Guizotj, " did not understand the true principles of intellectual liberty; it liberated the human mind, and yet pretended to govern it by law." But it is in vain for man to struggle against the nature of things: Protestantism endeavored, without success, to limit the right of private judgment. It raised its voice against it, and sometimes appeared to attempt its total destruction; but the right of private judgment, which was in its own bosom, remained there, developed itself, and acted there in spite of it. There was no middle course for Protestantism to adopt: it was compelled either to throw itself into the arms of authority, and thus acknowledge itself in the wrong, or else allow the dissolving principle to exert so much influence on its various sects, as to destroy even the shadow of the religion of Jesus Christ, and debase Christianity to the rank of a school of philosophy. The cry of resistance to the authority of the Church once raised, the fatal results might be easily imagined; it was thus easy to foresee that that poisoned germ, in its development, must cause the ruin of all the Christian truths; and what could prevent its rapid development in a soil where fermentation was so active? Catholics were not wanting to proclaim loudly the greatness and imminence of the danger; and it must be allowed that many Protestants foresaw it clearly. No one is ignorant that the most distinguished men of the sect gave their opinions on this point, even from the beginning. Men of the greatest talent never found themselves at ease in Protestantism. They always felt that there was an immense void in it; this is the reason why they have constantly inclined either towards irreligion or towards Catholic unity. Time, the best judge of opinions, has confirmed these melancholy prognostics. Things have now reached such a pass, that those only who are very ill instructed, or who have a very limited grasp of niind, can fail to see that the Christian religion, as explained by Protestants, is nothing more than an opinion -a system made up of a thousand incoherent parts, and which is degraded to the level of the schools of philosophy. If Christianity still seems to surpass these schools in some respects, and preserves some features which cannot be found in what is the pure invention of the mind of man, it ought not to be a matter of astonishment. It is owing to that sublimity of doctrine and that sanctity of morality which, more or less disfigured, always shines while a trace is preserved of the words of Jesus Christ. But the feeble light which struggles with darkness after the sun has sunk below the horizon, cannot be compared to that of day: darkness advances and spreads; it extinguishes the expiring reflection, and night comes on. Such is the doctrine of Christianity among Protestants. A glance at these sects shows us that they are not purely philosophical, but it shows us at the same time that they have not the characters of true religion. Christianity has no authority therein; and is there like a being out of its proper element,-a tree deprived of its roots: its face is pale and disfigured like that of a corpse. Protestantism talks of faith, and its fundamental principle destroys it; it endeavors to exalt the gospel, and its own principle, by subjecting that gospel to private judgment, weakens its authority. If it speak of the sanctity and purity of Christian morality, it is reminded that some of its dissenting sects deny the divinity of Jesus Christ; and that they all may do so according to the principle on which it rests. The Divinity of Jesus Christ once doubted, the God-made man is reduced to the rank of a great philosopher and legislator; He has no longer the authority necessary to give to His laws the august sanction which renders them so holy in the eyes of men; He can no longer imprint upon them the seal which raises them above all human thoughts, and His sublime instructions cease to be lessons flowing from the lips of uncreated Wisdom. If you deprive the human mind of the support of authority of some kind or 44 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. other, on what can it depend? Abandoned to its own delirious dreams, it is forced again into the gloomy paths which led the philosophers of the ancient schools to chaos. Reason and experience are here agreed. If you substitute the private judgment of Protestants for the authority of the Church, all the great questions respecting God and man remain without solution. All the difficulties are left; the mind is in darkness, and seeks in vain for a light to guide it'in safety: stunned by the voices of a hundred schools, who dispute without being able to throw any light on the subject, it relapses into that state of discouragement and prostration in which Christianity found it, and from which, with so much exertion, she had withdrawn it. Doubt, pyrrhonism, and indifference become the lot of the greatest minds; vain theories, hypothetical systems, and dreams take possession of men of more moderate abilities; the ignorant are reduced to superstitions and absurdities. Of what use, then, would Christianity have been on the earth, and what would have been the progress of humanity? Happily for the human race, the Christian religion was not abandoned to the whirlwind of Protestant sects. In Catholic authority she has found ample means of resisting the attacks of sophistry and error. What would have become of her without it? Would the sublimity of her doctrines, the wisdom of her precepts, the unction of her counsels, have been now any thing more than a beautiful dream, related in enchanting language by a great philosopher? Yes, I must repeat, without the authority of the Church there is no security for faith; the divinity of Jesus Christ becomes a matter of doubt; His mission is disputed; in fact, the Christian religion disappears. If she cannot show us her heavenly titles, give us full' certainty that she has come from the bosom of the Eternal, that her words are those. of God Himself, and that He has condescended to appear on earth for the salvation of men, she has then lost her right to demand our veneration. Reduced to the level of human ideas, she must, then, submit to our judgment like other mere opinions; at the tribunal of philosophy she may endeavor to maintain her doctrines as more or less reasonable; but she will always be liable to the reproach of having wished to deceive us, by passing herself off as divine when she was only human; and in all discussions on the truth of her doctrines, she will have this fatal presumption against her, viz. that the account of her origin was an imposture. Protestants boast of their independence of mind, and reproach the Catholic rellgion with violating the most sacred rights, by demanding a submission which outrages the dignity of man. Here extravagant declamation about the strength of our understanding is introduced with good effect; and a few seductive images and expressions, such as "bold flights" and "glittering wings," &c., are enough to delude many readers. Let the human mind enjoy all its rights; let it boast of possessing that spark of divinity called the intellect; let it pass over all nature in triumph, observing all the beings by which it is surrounded, and congratulate itself on its own immense superiority, in the midst of the wonders with which it has known how to embellish its abode; let it point out, as proofs of its strength and grandeur, the changes which are everywhere worked by its presence; by its intellectual force and boldness it has acquired the complete mastery over nature. Let us acknowledge the dignity and elevation of our minds to show our gratitude to our Creator, but let us not forget our weakness and defects. Why should w? deceive ourselves by fancying that we know what we are really ignorant of?' hy forget the inconstancy and variableness of our minds, and conceal the fact, that with respect to many things, even of those with which we are supposed to be acquainted, we have but confused ideas? How delusive is our knowledge, and what exaggerated notions we have of our progress in information? Does not one day contradict what another had affirmed? Time runs its course, laughs PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITI CATHOLICITY. 45 at our predictions, destroys our plans, and clearly shows how vain are our projects. What have those geniuses who have descended to the foundations of science, and risen by the boldest flights to the loftiest speculations, told us? Aftei having reached the utmost limits of the space which it is permitted to the human mind to range over, —after having trodden the most secret paths of science, and sailed on the vast ocean of moral and physical nature, the greatest minds of all ages have returned dissatisfied with the results. They have seen a beautiful illusion appear before their eyes,-the brilliant image which enchanted them has vanished; when they thought they'were about to enter a region of light, they have found themselves surrounded with darkness, and they have viewed with affright the extent of their ignorance. It is for this reason that the greatest minds have so little confidence in the strength of the human intellect, although they cannot but be fully aware that they are superior to other men. The sciences, in the profound observation of Pascal, have two extremes which meet each other: the first is, the pure natural state of ignorance in which men are at their birth; the other extreme is, that at which great minds arrive when, having reached the utmost extent of human knowledge, they find that they know nothing, and that they are still in the same state of ignorance as at first. (Pensses, 1 partie, art. 6.) Catholicism says to man, " Thy intellect is weak, thou hast need of a guide in many things." Protestantism says to him, " Thou art surrounded by light, walk as thou wilt; thou canst not have a better guide than thyself." Which of the two religions is most in accordance with the lessons of the highest philosophy? It is not, therefore, surprising that the greatest minds among Protestants have all felt a certain tendency towards Catholicism, and have seen the wisdom of subjecting the human mind, in some things, to the decision of an infallible authority. Indeed, if an authority can be found uniting in its origin, its duration, its doctrines, and its conduct, all the characteristics of divinity, why should the mind refuse to submit to her; and what has it to gain by wandering, at the mercy of its illusions, on the most serious subjects, in paths where it only meets with recollections of errors, with warnings and delusions? If the human mind has conceived too great an esteem for itself, let it study its own history, in order to see and understand how little security is to be found in its own strength. Abounding in systems, inexhaustible in subtilties; as ready in conceiving a project as incapable of maintaining it; full of ideas which arise, agitate, and destroy each other, like the insects which abound in lakes; now raising itself on the wings of sublime inspiration, and now creeping like a reptile on the face of the earth; as able and willing to destroy the works of others, as it is impotent to construct any durable ones of its own; urged on by the violence of passion, swollen with pride, confounded by the infinite variety of objects which present themselves to it; confused by so many false lights and so many deceptive appearances, the human mind, when left entirely to itself, resembles those brilliant meteors which dart at random through the immensity of the heavens, assume a thousand eccentric forms, send forth a thousand sparks, dazzle for a moment by their fantastic splendour, and disappear without leaving even a reflected light to illuminate the darkness. Behold the history of man's knowledge! In that immense and confused heap of truth, error, sublimity, absurdity, wisdom, and folly, are collected the proofs of my assertions, and to that do I refer any one who may be inclined to accuse me of having overcharged the picture. (7) 46 CHAPTER V. INSTINCT OF FAITH IN THE SCIENCES. THE truth of what I have just advanced with respect to the weakness of our intellect, is proved by the fact that the hand of God has placed at the bottom of our souls a preservative against the excessive changeability of our minds, even in things which do not regard religion. Without this preservative all social institutions would be destroyed, or rather never would have had existence; without it the sciences would not have advanced a step, and when it had disappeared from the human heart, individuals and society would have been swallowed up by chaos.' I allude to a certain tendency to defer to authorityto the instinct of faith, if I may so call it-an instinct which we ought to examine with great attention, if we wish to know any thing of the human mind, and the history of its development. It has often been observed that it is impossible to comply with the most urgent necessities, or perform the most ordinary acts of life, without respecting the authority of the statement of others; it is easy to understand that, without this faith, all the treasures of history and experience would soon be dissipated, and that even the foundation of all knowledge would disappear. These important observations are calculated to show how vain is the charge against the Catholic religion, of requiring nothing but faith; but this is not my only object here; I wish to present the matter under another aspect, and place the question in such a position as to make this truth gain in extent and interest, without losing any thing of its immovable firmness. In looking over the history of human knowledge, and glancing at the opinions of our contemporaries, we constantly observe that the men who boast the most of their spirit of inquiry and freedom of thought, only echo the opinions of others. If we examine with attention that great study which, under the name of science, has made so much noise in the world, we shall observe that it contains at bottom a large portion of authority; and that if a perfectly free spirit of inquiry were to' be introduced into it, even with respect to points of pure reason, the greatest part of the edifice of science would be destroyed, and very few men would remain in possession of its secrets. No branch of knowledge, whatever may be the clearness and exactitude of which it boasts, is an exception to this rule. Do not the natural and exact sciences, rich as they are in evident principles, rigorous in their deductions, abounding in observation and experience, depend, nevertheless, for a great many of their truths, upon other truths of a higher nature; the knowledge of which necessarily requires a delicacy of observation, a power of calculation, a clear and penetrating coup d'oel, which belongs to few? When Newton proclaimed.to the scientific world the fruit of his profound calculations, how many of his disciples could flatter themselves that they were able to confirm them by their own convictions? I do not'except from this question many. of those who, by laborious efforts, had been able to comprehend something of this great man; they had followed the mathematician in his calculations, they had a full knowledge of the mass of facts and experience which the naturalist exposed to their view; they had listened to the reasons on which the philosopher rested his conjectures; in this way they thought that they were fully convinced, and that they did not owe their assent to any thing but the force of reason and evidence. Well, take away the name of Newton, efface from the mind the profound impression made by the authority of the man who made so extraordinaiy a discovery, and has employed so much genius in sup. porting it,-take away, I repeat it, the shade of Newton, and you will directly see, in the minds of his disciples, their principles vacillate, their reasonings be PROTESTANTISilI COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 47 come less convincing Lnd exact, and their observations appear less in accordance with the facts. Then, he who thought himself a perfectly impartial observer, 1 perfectly independent thinker, will see and understand to how great an extent he was enthralled by the force of authority, by the ascendency of genius; he will find that, on a variety of points, he assented without being convinced; and that, instead of being a perfectly independent philosopher, he was only an obedient and accomplished pupil. I appeal with confidence to the testimony, not of the ignorant, not of those who have only a smattering of scientific knowledge, but of real men of learning, of those who have devoted much time to the various branches of study. L!et them look into their own minds, let them examine anew what they call their scientific convictions, let them ask themselves, with perfect calmness and impartiality, whether, even on those subjects in which they consider themselves the most advanced, their minds are not frequently controlled by the ascendency of some author of the first rank. I believe they will be compelled to acknowledge that, if they strictly applied the method of Descartes even to some of the questions which they have studied the most, they would find that they believe rather than are convinced. Such always has been, and such always will be, the case. It is a thing deeply rooted in the nature of our minds, and it cannot be prevented. Perhaps the regulation is a matter of absolute necessity; perhaps it contains much of that instinct of preservation which God, with so much wisdom, has diffused throughout society; perhaps it is intended to counteract the many elements of dissolution which society contains within its bosom. Undoubtedly, it is often very much to be regretted that men servilely follow in the footsteps of others, and injurious consequences not unfrequently are the result. But it would be still worse, if men constantly held themselves in an attitude of resistance to all others, for fear of deception. Woe to man and to society, if the philosophic mania of wishing to submit all matters to a rigorous examination were to become general in the world; and woe to science, if this rigorous, scrupulous, and independent scrutiny were extended to every thing. I admire the genius of Descartes, and acknowledge the signal services which he has rendered to science; but I have more than once thought that, if his method of doubting became general for any time, society would be destroyed. And it seems to me that, among learned men themselves, among impartial philosophers, this method would do great harm; at least, it may be supposed that the number of men devoid of sense in'the scientific world would be considerably increased. Happily there is no danger of this being the case. If it be true that there is always in man a certain tendency towards folly, there is also always to be found there a fund of good sense which cannot be destroyed. When certain individuals of heated imaginations attempt to involve society in their delirium, society answers with a smile of derision; or if it allows itself to be seduced for a moment, it soon returns to its senses, and repels with indignation those who have endeavored to lead it astray. Passionate declamation against vulgar prejudice, against docility in following others and willingness to believe all without examination, is only considered as worthy of contempt by those who are intimately acquainted with human nature Are not these feelings participated in by many who belong not to the vulgar? Are not the sciences full of gratuitous suppositions, and have they not their weak points, with which, however, we are satisfied, as if they afforded a firm basis to rest upon? The right of possession and prescription is also one of the peculiarities which the sciences present to us; and it is well worthy of remark that, without ever having borne the name, this right has been acknowledged by a tacit but unanimous consent. How can this be? Study the history of the sciences, and you will find at every step this right acknowledged and established. How is it, 48. PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. amid the continual disputes which have divided philosophers, that we see an old. opinion make a long resistance to a new one, and sometimes succeed in pre, venting its establishment? It is because the old opinion was in possession, and was strengthened by the right of prescription. It is of no importance that the words were not used, the result was the same; this is the reason why discoverers have so often been despised, opposed, and even persecuted. It is necessary to make this avowal, although it may be repugnant to our pride, and may scandalize some sincere admirers of the prog-ess of knowledge These advances have been numerous; the field over which the human mind has exercised itself, and its sphere of action, are immense; the works by which it has proved its power are admirable; but there is always in all this a large portion of exaggeration, and it is necessary to make a considerable allowance, especially'in the moral sciences. It cannot justly be inferred, from these exaggerated statements, that our intellect is capable of advancing in every path with perfect ease and activity; no deduction can be drawn from it to contradict the fact which we have just established, viz. the mind of man is,almost always in subjection, even imperceptibly, to the authority of other men. In every age there appear a small number of privileged spirits, who, by nature superior to all the rest, serve as guides in the various careers; a numerous crowd, who think themselves learned, follow them with precipitation, and, fixing their eyej on the standard which has been raised, rush breathlessly after it; and yet, strange as it is, they all boast of their independence, and flatter themselves that they are distinguishing themselves by pursuing the new path; one would imagine that they had discovered it, and that they were walking in it guided by their own light and inspirations. Necessity, taste, or a thousand other circumstances, lead us to cultivate this or that branch of knowledge; our own weakness constantly tells us that we have no creative power; that we cannot produce any thing of our own, and that we are incapable of striking out a new path; but we flatter ourselves that we share some part of the glory belonging to the illustrious chief whose banner we follow; we sometimes will succeed in persuading ourselves, in the midst of these reveries, that we do not fight under anybody's standard, and that we are only rendering homage to our own convictions, when, in reality, we are the proselytes of others. Herein common sense shows itself to be wiser than our weak reason; and thus language, which gives such deep expression to things, where we find, without knowing whence they come, so much truth and exactitude, gives us a severe admonition on the subject of these vain pretensions. In spite of us, language calls things by their right names, and knows how to class us and our opinions according to the leader that we follow. What is the history of science but the history of the contests of a small number of illustrious men? If we glance over ancient and modern times, and bring into view the various branches of knowledge, we shall see a number of schools founded by a philosopher of the frst rank, and then falling under the direction of another whose talents have made him worthy to succeed the founder. Thus the thing goes on, until circumstances having changed, or the spirit of vitality being gone, the school dies a natural death, unless a man of bold and independent mind appears, wbh takes the old school and destroys it, in order to establish his own doctrines on the ruins. When Descartes dethroned Aristotle, did he not immediately take his place? Then philosophers pretended to independence-an independence which was contradicted by the very name they bore, that of Cartesians. Like nations who, in times of rebellion, cry out for liberty, dethrone their old. king, and afterwards submit to the first man who has the boldness to seize the vacant throne. It is thought in our age, as it has been in times gone by, that the human mind acts with perfect independence, owing to declamation against authority in scien tific matters, and the exaltation of the freedom of thought. The opinion hag PROTESTANTISSI COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 41 become general that, in these times, the authority of any one man is wortE nothing;'it has been thought that every man of learning acts according to hi, own convictions alone. Moreover, systems and hypotheses have lost all credit, and a great desire for examination and analysis has become prevalent. This has made people believe not only that authority in scientific matters is completely gone, but that it is henceforth impossible. At first sight there appears to be some truth in this; but if we look atten. tively around us, we shall observe that the number of leaders is only somewhat increased, and the time of their command somewhat shortened. Our age is truly one of commotions, literary and' scientific revolutions, like those in politics, where nations imagine that they possess more liberty because the government is placed in the hands of a greater number of persons, and because they find more facility in getting rid of their rulers. They destroy those men to whom but a short time before they have given the names of fathers and liberators; then, the first transport being passed, they allow other men to impose upon them a yoke in reality not less heavy. Besides the examples afforded us by the history of the past century, at the present day we see only great names succeed each other, and the leaders of the human mind take each other's places. In the field of politics, where one would imagine the spirit of freedom ought to have full scope, do we not see men who take the lead; and are they not looked upon as the generals of an army during a campaign? In the parliamentary arena, do we see any thing but two or three bodies of combatants, performing their evolutions under their respective chiefs with perfect regularity and discipline? These truths are well understood by those who occupy these high positions! They are acquainted with our weakness, and they know that men are commonly deceived by mere words. A thousand times must they have been tempted to smile, when, contemplating the field of their triumphs, and seeing themselves surrounded by followers who, proud of their own intelligence, admire and applaud them, they have heard one of the most ardent of their disciples boast of his unlimited freedom of thought, and of the complete independence of his opinions and his votes. Such is man, as shown to us by'history and the experience of every day. The inspiration of genius, that sublime force which raises the minds of some privileged men, will always exercise, not only over the ignorant, but even over the generality of men who devote themselves to science, a real fascination. Where, then, is the insult which the Catholic religion offers to reason when, presenting titles which prove her divinity, she asks for that faith which men grant so easily to other men in matters of various kinds, and even in things with which they consider themselves to be the best acquainted? Is it an insult to human reason to point out to him a fixed and certain rule with respect to matters of the greatest importance, while, on the other hand, she leaves him perfectly free to think as he pleases on all the various questions which God has left to his discretion? In this the Church only shows herself to be in accordance with the lessons of the highest philosophy. She shows a profound knowledge of the human mind, and she delivers it from all the evils which are inflicted by its fickleness, its inconstancy, and its ambition, combined as these qualities. are with an extraordinary tendency to defer to the opinions of individuals. W ho does not see that the Catholic Church puts thereby a check on the spirit of proselytism, of which society has had so much reason to complain? Since there is in man this irresistible tendency to follow the footsteps of another, does she not confer an eminent service on humanity, by showing it a sure way of following the example of a God incarnate 7 Does she not thus take human liberty under her protection, and at the same time save from shipwreck those branches of knowledge which are the most necessary to individuals and to society? (8) 7 E 50 CHAPTER VI. DIFFERENCES IN TIHE RELIGIOUS WANTS OF NATIONS-MATHEMATICSMORAL SCIENCES. THE progress of society, and the high degree of civilization and refinement to which modern nations have attained, will no doubt be urged against the authority which seeks to exercise jurisdiction over the mind. In this way men will attempt to justify what they call the emancipation of the human mind. For my own part, this objection seems to have so little solidity, and to be so little supported by facts, that, from the progress of society, I should, on the contrary, conclude that there is the more need of that living rule which is deemed indispensable by Catholics. To say that society in its infancy and youth may have required this authority as a check, but that this check has become useless and degrading since the human mind has reached a higher degree of development, is completely to mistake the connection which exists between the various conditions of our mind and the objects over which this authority extends. The true idea of God, the origin, the end, and the rule of human conduct, together with all the means with which God has furnished us to attain to our high destiny, such are the subjects with which faith deals, and with respect to which Catholics contend that it is necessary to have an infallible rule. They maintain that without this it would be impossible to avoid the most lamentable errors, and to protect truth from the effects of human passions. This consideration will suffice to show, that private judgment would be much less dangerous among nations still less advanced in the career of civilization. There is, indeed, in a young nation, a great fund of natural candor and simplicity, which admirably disposes it to receive with docility the instructions contained in the sacred volume. Such a people will relish those things which are easily to be understood, and will bow with humility before the sublime obscurity of those pages which it has pleased God to cover with a veil of mystery. Moreover, the condition of this people, as yet exempt from the pride of knowledge, would create a sort of authority, since there would be found within its bosom only a small number of men able to examine divine revelation; and thus a centre for the distribution of instruction would be naturally formed. But it is far-otherwise with a nation far advanced in the career of knowledge. With the latter, the extension of knowledge to a greater number of individuals, by augmenting *pride and fickleness, multiplies sects, and ends by revolutionizing ideas and corrupting the purest traditions. A young nation is devoted to simple occupations; it remains attached to its ancient customs; it listens with respect and docility to the aged, who, surrounded by their children and grandchildren, relate with emotion the histories and the maxims which they have received from their ancestors. But when society has reached a great degree of development, when respect for the fathers of families and veneration for gray hairs have become weakened; when pompous titles, scientific display, and grand libraries make men conceive a high idea of their intellectual powers; when the multitude and activity of communications widely diffuse those ideas, which, when put in motion, have an almost magical power of affecting men's minds, then it is necessary,-it is indispensable to have an authority, always living, always ready to act whenever it is wanted,-to cover with a protecting aegis the sacred deposit of truths which are the same in all times and places; truths without the knowledge of which man would be left to the mercy of his own errors and caprices from the cradle to the grave; truths on which society rests as its surest foundation; truths which cannot be destroyed without shaking to pieces the whole social edifice. The literary and political history of Europe for PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 51 the last three hundred years affords but too many proofs of this. Religious revolution broke out at the moment when it was capable of doing the most harm: it found society agitated by all the activity of the human mind, and it destroyed the control when it was most necessary. Undoubtedly, it is necessary to guard against depreciating the mind of man by charging it with faults which it has not, or by exaggerating those which it has; but it is no less improper to puff it up by exalting its strength too much. The latter would be injurious to it in several ways, and would ba little likely to advance its progress; it would also, if properly understood, be little conformable to that gravity and discretion which ought to distinguish true science. Indeed, to merit the name, science ought to show the folly of being vain of what does not rightly belong to it; it ought to know its limits, and have sufficient candor and generosity to acknowledge its weakness. There is a fact in the history of science, which, by revealing the intrinsic weakness of the mind, palpably shows the flattery of those unmeasured eulogies which are sometimes, lavished on it, and also demonstrates to us how dangerous it would be to abandon it to itself without any guide. This fact is, the obscurity which increases in proportion as we approach the first principles of science; so that even in those sciences the truth, evidence, and exactness of which are considered the best established, it seems that no firm ground is to be obtained when we attempt to go to the bottom of them; and the mind, not finding any security, recoils in the fear of meeting with something to throw doubt and uncertainty on the truths of which it was convinced. I do not participate in the ill-humor of Hobbes against the mathematics. Devoted to their progress, and deeply convinced as I am of the advantages which their study confers on the other sciences and on society, I shall not attempt to underrate their merit, or deny any of their great claims; but who can say that they are an exception to the general rule? Have they not their weak points and their darksome paths? It is true that, when we confine ourselves to the explanation of the first principles of these sciences, and the deduction from them of the most elementary propositions, the mind is on firm ground, where no fear of making a false step occurs to it. I put aside at present the obscurity which would be found in idealogy and metaphysics, if they were to discuss certain points according to the writings of the most distinguished philosophers. Let us confine ourselves to the circle to which the mathematics are naturally confined. Who that has studied them is ignorant that you may reach a point in their theories, where the mind finds nothing but obscurity? The demonstration is before our eyes; it has been developed in all its parts; and yet the mind wavers, feeling within itself a kind of uncertainty which it cannot well describe. It sometimes happens that, after reasoning a long time, the truth rushes upon us like the light of day; but it is not until we have walked in darkness for a long period. When we fix our attention upon those thoughts which wander in our minds like moving lights, on those almost imperceptible emotions which, on these occasions, arise, and then die away in the soul, we observe that the mind, in the midst of its fluctuations, seeks instinctively for the anchor which is to be found in the authority of another. To reassure ourselves completely, we then invoke the authority of some great mathematicians, and we rejoice that the fact is placed beyond a doubt by the series of great men who have always viewed' it in the same light. But perhaps our ignorance and pride will not admit the truth of these reflections. Let us, then, study these sciences, or at least read their history, and we shall be convinced that they afford numerous proofs of the weakness of the intellect. Did not the extraordinary invention of Newton and Leibnitz find many opponents in Europe? Were there not required to establish it, both the sanction of 5; PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. time and the touchstone of experience, which made manifest the truth of their principles and the exactness of their reasonings? Do you believe that, if this invention were again, for the first time, to make its appearance in the field of science, even fortified with all the proofs which have been brought forward to strengthen it, ahd surrounded with all the light which so many explanations have shed upon it,-do you believe, I say, that it would not need a second time the right of prescription, to regain its tranquil and undisturbed empire? It is easy to suppose that the other sciences have no little share in this uncertainty arising from the weakness of the human mind; as I do not imagine that this assertion will be called in question, I pass on to a few remarks on the peculiar character of the moral sciences. The fact has not been sufficiently attended to, that there is no study more deceptive than that of the moral sciences; I say deceptive, because this study, seducing the mind by an appearance of facility, draws it into difficulties which it is no easy matter to overcome. It may be compared to those tranquil waters which, although apparently but shallow, are in reality unfathomably deep. Familiarized from our infancy with the language of this science, surrounded by its continual applications, and having before our eyes its truths under a palpable form, we possess a certain facility of speaking readily on many parts of the subject; and we have the rashness to suppose that it would not be difficult to master its highest principles and its most delicate relations. But wonderful as it is, scarcely have we quitted the path of common sense, and attempted to go beyond those simple impressions which we have received from our mothers, when we find ourselves in a labyrinth of confusion. If the mind gives itself up to subtilties, it ceases to listen to the voice of the heart, which speaks to it with equal simplicity and eloquence; if it does not repress its pride, and attend to the wise counsels of good sense, it will be guilty of despising those salutary and necessary truths, which have been preserved by society to be transmitted from generation to generation: it is then, while groping its way in the dark, that it falls into the wildest extravagances, the lamentable effects of which are so often exemplified in the history of the sciences. If we observe attentively, we shall find something of the same kind in all the sciences. The Creator has taken care to supply us with knowledge necessary for the purposes of life, and for the attainment of our destiny; but it has not pleased Him to gratify our curiosity by discovering to us what was not necessary. Nevertheless, in some things he has communicated to the mind a power which renders it capable of constantly adding to its knowledge; but, with respect to moral truths, it has been left sterile. What man is required to know, has beehn deeply engraven on his heart, in characters simple and intelligible; or is contained in the sacred volume; and moreover, he has had pointed out to him, in the authority of the Church, a fixed rule, to which he can apply to have his doubts explained. With respect to the rest, man has been placed in such a position, that if he attempt to enter into matters which are too subtle, he only wanders backwards and forwards in the same road, at the extremities of which he finds on the one side skepticism, on the other pure truth. Perhaps some modern idealogists will urge, in opposition to this, the result of their own analytical labours. " Before men began to analyze facts," they will say, "and while they indulged in fanciful systems, and satisfied themselves with verbal disputes without critical examination, all this might be true; but now that we have explained all tlhe ideas of moral good and evil, in so perfect a way, and have separated the prejudice in them from the true philosophy; now that the whole system of morality is based upon the simple principles of pleasure and pain, and we have given the clearest ideas of these things, such, for example, as the sensations produced in us by an orange; to maintain your assertion, is to be ungrateful towards science, and to underrate the fruit of our labours." PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 58 I am aware of the labours of some moral idealogists, and I know with what deceptive simplicity they develope their theories, by giving to the most difficult things an easy turn, which affects to make them intelligible to the most limited minds. This is not the place to examine these analytical investigations, and their results. I shall, however, remark that, in spite of their promised simplicity, it does not appear that either society or science makes much progress through their means, and that these opinions, although but a short time broached, are already superannuated. This is not a matter of astonishment to us; for it was easy to perceive that, in spite of their positiveness, if I may be allowed to use the expression, these idealogists are as hypothetical as many of their predecessors, who are loaded by them with sarcasms and contempt. They are a poor, narrow-minded school, devoid of the truth, and not even adorned by the brilliant dreams of great men; a proud and deluded school, who fancy they explain a fact, when they only obscure it; and prove a thing, when they only assert it; and imagine that they analyze the human heart, when they take it to pieces. If such is the human mind; if such is its inability in matters of science, whether physical or moral, that it has not advanced a single step beyond the limit prescribed by a beneficent Providence; what service has Protestantism rendered to modern society, by impairing the force of authority, that power which could alone present an effectual barrier to man's unhappy wanderings? (9) CHAPTER VII. INDIFFERENCE AND FANATICISM. IN rejecting the authority of the Church, and in adopting this resistance as its only principle, Protestantism was compelled to seek its whole support in man; thus to mistake the true character of the human mind, and its relations with religious and moral truth, was to throw itself, according to circumstances, into the opposite extremes of fanaticism and indifference. It may seem strange that these opposite errors should emanate from the same source; and yet nothing is more certain. Protestantism, by appealing to man alone in religious matters, had only two courses to adopt; either to suppose men to be inspired by Heaven for the discovery of truth, or to subject all religious truths to the examination of reason. To submit religious truths to the judgment of reason was sooner or later to produce indifference; on the other hand, private inspiration must engender fanaticism. There is a universal and constant fact in the history of the human mindviz. its decided inclination to invent systems in which the reality of things is completely laid aside, and where we only see the workings of a spirit which has chosen to quit the ordinary path in order to give itself up to its own inspirations. The history of philosophy is little else than a perpetual repetition of this phenomenon, which the human mind shows, in some shape or other, in all things which admit of it. When the mind has conceived a peculiar idea, it regards it with that blind and exclusive predilection which is found in the love of the father for his children. Under the influence of this prejudice, the mind developes its ideas and accommodates facts to suit it; that which at first was only an ingenious and extravagant idea, becomes the germ of important doctrines; and if it arise in a person of an ardent disposition, fanaticism, the cause of so much madness, is the consequence. The danger is very.much increased when the new system applies to religious matters, or is immediately connected with them. The extravagances of a diseased mind are then looked upon as inspirations from Heaven; the fever of 2 b4 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. delirium' as a divine flame; and a mania of being singular as an extraordinary vocation. Pride, unable to brook opposition, rises against all that it finds established; it insults all authority; it attacks all institutions; it despises everybody; it conceals the grossest violence under the mantle of zeal, and ambition under the name of apostleship. The dupe of himself rather than an impostor, the wretched maniac sometimes becomes deeply persuaded that his doctrines are true, and that he has received the commands of Heaven. As there is something extraordinary and striking in the fiery language of the madman, he communicates to those who listen to him a portion of his insanity, and makes, in a short time, a considerable number of proselytes. The men capable of playing the first part in this scene of madness are not numerous, it is true; but unhappily the majority of men are foolish enough to be easily led away. History and experience sufficiently prove that the crowd are easily attracted, and that to form a party, however criminal, extravagant, or ridiculous, it is only necessary to raise a standard. I wish to take this opportunity of making an observation which I have never seen pointed out-viz. that the Church, in her contest with heresy, has rendered an important service to the science which devotes itself to the examination of the true character, tendency, and power of the human mind. The zealous guardian of all great truths, she has always known how to preserve them unimpaired; she was fully acquainted with the weakness of the mind of man, and its extreme proneness to folly and extravagance; she has followed it closely in all its steps, has watched it in all its movements, and has constantly resisted it with energy, when it attempted to pollute the pure fountain of which she is the guardian. During the long and violent contests which she has had with it, the Church has made manifest its incurable folly; she has exhibited it on every side, and has shown it in all its forms. Thus it is that, in the history of heresies, she has made an abundant collection of facts, and has painted an extremely interesting picture of the human mind, where its characteristic physiognomy is faithfully represented; a picture which will doubtless be of great service in the composition of the important work which is yet unwritten-viz. the true history of the human mind. (10) Certain it is that the ravings and extravagances of fanaticism have not been wanting in the history of Europe for the last three hundred years. Their monuments still remain; in whatever direction we turn our steps, we find bloodly traces of the fanatical sects produced by Protestantism, and engendered by its fundamental principle. Nothing could confine this devastating torrent, neither the violent character of Luther, nor the furious efforts which he made to oppose every one who taught doctrines different from his own. Impiety succeeded impiety, extravagance extravagance, fanaticism fanaticism. The pretended Reformnation was soon divided into as many sects as there were found men with the ingenuity to invent and the boldness to maintain a system of their own. This was necessarily the case; for besides the danger of leaving the human mind without a guide on all questions of religion, there was another cause fruitful in fatal results, I mean the private interpretation of the sacred books. It was then found that the best things may be abused, and that these divine volumes, which contain so much instruction for the mind, and so.much consolation for the r.art, are full of danger to the proud. How great will this be, if you add to the obstinate resolution of resisting all authority in matters of faith, the false persuasion that the meaning of the Scriptures is everywhere clear, aid that, in all cases, the inspirations of Heaven may be expected to solve every doubt? What will happen to those who turn over their pages with a longing desire to find some text which, more or less tortured, may seem to authorize their sophisms, subtilties, and absurdities? There never was a greater mistake than that which was committed by the PIOTESTANTISM COMPARED WrTH CATHOLICITY. 55 Protestant leaders, when they placed the Bible in the hands of all for self-interpretation; never was the nature of that sacred volume more completely lost sight of. It is true that Protestantism had no other method to pursue, and that every objection which it could make to the private interpretation of the sacred text would be a striking inconsistency, an apostasy from its own principles, and a denial of its own origin; but at the same time, this is its most decided condemnation. What claim, indeed, can that religion have to truth and sanctity whose fundamental principle contains the germ of sects the most fanatical-the most injurious to society? It would be difficult to collect into so narrow a space, in opposition to this essential error of Protestantism, so many facts and convincing proofs of this, as are contained in the following lines, written by a Protestant, O'Callaghan, which, I have no doubt, my readers will thank me for quoting here. " Led away," says O'Callaghan, " by their spirit of opposition to the Church of Rome, the first Reformers loudly proclaimed the right of interpreting the Scriptures according to each one's private judgment; but in their eagerness to emancipate the people from the authority of the Pope, they proclaimed this right without explanation or restriction: and the consequences were fearful. Impatient to undermine the papal jurisdiction, they maintained without exception, that each individual has an incontestable right to interpret the Scriptures for himself; and as this principle, carried to the fullest extent, was not sustainable, they were obliged to rely for support upon another, viz. that the Bible is an easy book, within the comprehension of all minds, and that the divine revelations contained in it are always clear to all; two propositions which, whether we consider them together or apart, cannot withstand a serious attack. "The private judgment of Muncer found in the Scriptures that titles of nobility and great estates are impious usurpations, contrary to the natural equality of the faithful, and he invited his followers to examine if this were not the case. They examined into the matter, praised God, and then proceeded by fire and sword to extirpate the impious and possess themselves of their properties. Private judgment made the discovery in the Bible that established laws were a permanent restriction on Christian liberty; and, behold, John of Leyden, throwing away his tools, put himself at the head of a mob of fanatics, surprised the town of Munster, proclaimed himself king of Sion, and took fourteen wives at a time, asserting that polygamy is Christian liberty, and the privilege of the saints. But if the criminal madness of these men in another country is afflicting to the friends of humanity and of real piety, certainly the history of England, during a great part of the seventeenth century, is not calculated to console them. During that period an immense number of fanatics appeared, sometimes together and sometimes in succession, intoxicated with extravagant doctrines and mischievous passions, from the fierce ravings of Fox to the more methodical madness of Barclay; from the formidable fanaticism of Cromwell to the silly profanity of'Praise God Barebones.' Piety, reason, and good sense seemed to be extinct on earth, and to be succeeded by an extravagant jargon, a religious frenzy, and a zeal without discretion. All quotec the Scriptures, all pretended to have had inspirations, visions, and spiritual ecstasies, and all, indeed, had equal claims to them. It was strongly maintained that it was proper to abolish the priesthood and the royal dignity, because priests were the ministers of Satan, and kings the delegates of the whore of Babylon, and that the existence of both were inconsistent with the reign of the Redeemer. The fanatics condemned science as a Pagan invention, and universities as seminaries of antichristian impiety. Bishops were not protected by the sanctity of their functions, or kings by the majesty of the throne; both, as objects of contempt and hatred, were mercilessly put to death by these fanatics, whose only book was the Bible, without note or comment. During this time, the enthusiasm for 66 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. prayer, preaching, and the reading of the sacred books was at the highest point; everybody prayed, preached, and read, but nobody listened. The greatest atro. cities were justified by the Scriptures; in the most ordinary transactions of life, scriptural language was made use of; national affairs, foreign and domestic, w.ere discussed in the phraseology of Holy Writ. There were scriptural plots, conspiracies, and proscriptions; and all this was not only justified but even sanctified by quotations from the word of God.'These facts, attested by history, have often astonished and alarmed men of virtue and piety, but the reader, too,tuch imbued with his own ideas, forgets the lesson to be learnt by this fatal experience; namely, that the Bible without note or comment was not intended to be read by rude and ignorant men. "The majority of mankind must be content to receive the instructions of others, and are not enabled to trust themselves. The most important truths in medicine, in jurisprudence, in physics, in mathematics, must be received from those who drink at the fountain head. The same plan has in general been pursued with respect to Christianity; and whenever the departure from it has been wide enough,' society has been shaken to its foundation.'" These words of O'Cal]aghan do not require any comment. It cannot be said that they are hyperbolical or declamatory, as they are only a simple and faithful narration of acknowledged facts. The recollection of these events should suffice to prove the danger of placing the sacred Scriptures, without note or comment, into the hands of all, as Protestantism does, under the pretence, that the authority of the Church is useless for understanding the holy books; and that every Christian has only to listen to the dictates which generally emanate from his passions and heated imagination. By this error alone, if it had committed no other, Protestantism is self-reproved and condemned; for it is a religion which has established a principle destructive to itself. In order to appreciate the madness of Protestantism on this point, and to see how false and dangerous is the position which it has assumed with regard to the human mind, it is not" necessary to be a theologian, or a Catholic; it is enough to have read the Scriptures with the eyes of a philosopher or a man of literature. Here is a book which comprises, within a limited compass, the period of four thousand years, and advances further towards the most distant future, by embracing the origin and destiny of man and the universe-a book which, with the continued history of a chosen people, intermingles, in its narrations and prophecies, the revolutions of mighty empires-a book which, side by side with the magnificent pictures of the power and splendor of Eastern monarchs, describes, in simple colors, the plain domestic manners, the candor, and innocence of a young nation-a book in which historians relate, sages proclaim their maxims of wisdom, apostles preach, and doctors instruct-a book in which prophets, under the influence of the divine Spirit, thunder against the errors and corruptions of the people, and announce the vengeance of the God of Sinai, or pour forth inconsolable lamentations on the captivity of their brethren, and the desolation and solitude of their country; where they relate, in wonderful and sublime language, the magnificent spectacles which are presented to their eyes; where, in moments of ecstasy, they see pass before them the events of society and the catastrophes of nature, although veiled in mysterious figures and visions of obscurity-a book, or rather a collection of books, where are to be found all sorts of styles and all varieties of narrative, epic majesty, pastoral simplicity, lyric fire, serious instruction, grave historical narrative, and lively and rapid dramatic action; a collection of books, in fine, written at various times and in various languages, in various countries, and under the most peculiar and extraordinary circumstances. Must not all this confuse the heads of men who, puffed up with their own conceit, grope through these pages in the dark, ignorant of climates, times, laws, customs, and manners? They will be puzzled by allusions, sur PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY..7 prised by images, deceived by expressions; they will hear the Greek and Hebrew, which was written in those. remote ages, now spoken in a modern idiom. What effects must all these circumstances produce on the minds of readers who believe that the Bible is an easy book, to be understood without difficulty by all? Persuaded -that they do not require the instructions of others, they must either resolve all these difficulties by their own reflections, or trust to that individual inspiration which they believe will not be wanting to explain to them the loftiest mysteries. Who, after this, can be astonished that Protestantism has produced so many absurd visionaries and furious fanatics? (11) CHAPTER VIII. FANATICISM-ITS DEFINITION.-FANATICISM IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. IT would be unjust to charge a religion with falsehood, merely because fanatics are to be found within its bosom. This would be to reject all, because none are to be found exempt from them. A religion, then,. is not to be c6ndemned because it has them, but because it produces them, urges them on, and opens a field for them. If we observe closely, we shall find at the bottom of the human heart an abundant source of fanaticism; the history of man affords us many proofs of this incontestable truth. Imagine whatever delusion you please, relate the most extravagant visions, invent the most absurd system, if you only take care to give to all a religious coloring, you may be sure that you will have enthusiastic followers, who will heartily devote themselves to the propagation of your doctrines, and will espouse your cause blindly and ardently; in other words, you will have under your standard a troop of fanatics. Philosophers have devoted many pages to declamation against fanaticism;'they have, as it were, assumed the mission of banishing it from the earth. They have tired mankind with philosophical lectures, and have thundered against the monster with all the vigor of their eloquence. They used the word, however, in so wide a sense as to include all kind of religion. But, if they had confined themselves to attacking real fanaticism, I believe they would have done much better if they had devoted some time to the examination of this matter in an analytic spirit, and had treated it, after so doing, maturely, calmly, and without prejudice. Inasmuch as these philosophers were aware that fanaticism is a natural infirmity of the human mind, they could, if they were men of sense and wisdom, have had little hope of banishing the accursed monster from the world by reasoning and eloquence; for I am not aware that, up to the present time, philosophy has remedied any of the important evils that afflict humanity. Among the numerous errors of the philosophy of the eighteenth century, one of the principal was the mania for types; there was formed in the mind a type of the nature of man, of society, in a word, of every thing; and every thing that could not be adjusted to this type, every thing that could not be moulded into the required form, was so subjected to the fury of philosophers, as to make it certain, at least, that the want of pliability did not go unpunished. But do I mean to deny the existence of fanaticism in thq world? There is much of it. Do I deny that it is an evil? It is a very great one. Can it be extirpated? It cannrot. How can its extentbe diminished, its force weakened, and its violence checked? By directing man wisely. Can this be done by philosophy? We shall presently see. What is the origin of fanaticism? We must begin by defining the real meaning of the word. By fanaticism is meant, taking the word in its widest signification, the strong excitement of a mind powerfully acted on by a false or exaggerated opinion. If the opinion be true, 8 iS')PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. if it be confined within just limits, there is no fanaticism; or, if there be any, it is only with respect to the means employed in defending the opinion. But in that case there is an erroneous judgment, since it is believed that the truth of the opinion authorizes the means; that is to say, there is already error or exaggeration. If. a true opinion be sustained by legitimate means, if the occasion be opportune, whatever may be the excitement or effervescence of mind, whatever may be the energy of the efforts and the sacrifices made, then there is enthusiasm of mind and heroism of action, but no fanaticism. Were it otherwise, the heroes of all times and countries might be stigmatized as fanatics. Fanaticism, in this general sense, extends to all the subjects which occupy the human mind; thus there are fanatics in religion, in politics, even in science and literature. Nevertheless, according to etymology and custom, the word is properly applied to religious matters only; therefore the word, when used alone, means fanaticism in religion, whilst, when applied to other things, it is always accompanied by a qualifying epithet; thus we say political fanatics, literary fanatics, &c. There is no doubt that in religious matters men have a strong tendency to give themselves to a dominant idea, which they desire to communicate to all around them, and propagate everywhere. They sometimes go so far as to attempt this by the most violent means. The same fact appears, to a certain extent, in other matters; but it acquires in religious things a character different from what it assumes elsewhere. It is there that the human mind acquires increased force, frightful energy, and unbounded expansion; there are no more difficulties, obstacles, or fetters; material interests entirely disappear; the greatest sufferings acquire a charm; torments are nothing; death itself is a seductive illusion. This phenomenon varies with individuals, with ideas, with the manners of the nation in whose bosom it is produced; but at bottom it is always the same. If we examine the matter thoroughly, we shall find that the violences of the followers of Mahomet, and the extravagant disciples of Fox, have a common origin. It is with this passion as with all others; when they produce great evils, it is because they deviate from their legitimate objects, or because they strive at those objects by means which are not conformable to the dictates of reason and prudence. Fanaticism, then, rightly understood, is nothing but misguided religious feeling; a feeling which man has within him from the cradle to the tomb, and which is found to be diffused throughout society in all periods of its existence. Vain have been the efforts made up to this time to render men irreligious; a few individuals may give themselves up to the folly of complete irreligion; but the human race always protests against those who endeavor to stifle the sentiment of religion. Now this feeling is so strong and active, it exercises so unbounded an influence on man, that no sooner has it been diverted from its legitimate object, and quitted the right path, than it is seen to produce lamentable results; then it is that two causes, fertile in great disasters, are found in combination, complete blindness of the understanding and irresistible energy of the will. In declaiming against fanaticism, many Protestants and philosophers have thought proper to throw a large share of blame on the Catholic Church; certainly they ought to have been more moderate in this respect if their philosophy had been good. It is true the Church cannot boast of having cured all the follies of man; she cannot pretend to have banished fanaticism so completely as not to have some fanatics among her children; but she may justly boast that no religion has taken more effectual means of curing the evil. It may, moreover, be affirmed, that she has taken her measures so well, that when it does make its appearance, she confines it within such limits that it may exist for a time, but cannot produce very dangerous results. PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 59 Its mental errors and delirious dreams, which, if encouraged, lead men to the commission of the greatest extravagances and the most horrible crimes, are kept under control when the mind possesses a salutary conviction of its own weakness and a respect for infallible authority. If they be not extinguished at their birth, at least they remain in a state of isolation, they do not injure the deposit of- true doctrine, and the ties which unite all the faithful as members of the same body are not broken. With respect to revelations, visions, prophecies, and ecstasies, as long as they preserve a private character and do not affect the truths of faith, the Church, generally speaking, tolerates them and abstains from interference, leaving the discussion of the facts to criticism, and allowing the faithful an' entire liberty of thinking as they please; but if the affair assumes a more important aspect, if the visionary calls in question points of doctrine, she immediately shows her vigilance. Attentive to every voice raised against the instructions of her Divine Master, she fixes an observant eye on the innovator. She examines whether he be a man deceived in matters of doctrine or-a wolf in sheep's clothing; she raises her warning voice, she points out to all the faithful the error or the danger, and the voice of the Shepherd recalls the wandering sheep; but if he refuse to listen to her, and prefer to follow his own caprices, she separates him from the flock, and declares him to resemble the wolf. From that moment all those who are sincerely desirous of continuing in the bosom of the Church, can no more be infected with the error. Undoubtedly, Protestants will reproach Catholics with the number of visionaries who have existed in the Church; they will recall the revelations and visions of a great number of saints who are venerated on our altars; they will accuse us of fanaticism,-a fanaticism, they will say, which, far from being limited in its effects to a narrow circle, has been able to produce the most important results. "Do not the founders of religious orders alone," they will say, "afford us a spectacle of a long succession of fanatics, who, self-deluded, exercised upon others, by their words and example, the greatest fascination that was ever seen?" As this is not the place to enlarge upon the subject of religious communities, which I propose to do in another part of this work, I shall content myself with the observation, that even supposing that all the visions and revelations of our saints and the heavenly inspirations with which the founders of religious orders believed themselves to have been favored were delusions, our opponents would not be in any way justified in throwing on the Church the. reproach of fanaticism. And, first, it is easy to see that, as far as individual visions are concerned, as long as they are thus limited, there may be delusion, or, if you will, fanaticism; but this fanaticism will not be injurious to any one, or create confusion in society. If a poor woman believe herself to be peculiarly favoured by Heaven, if she fancy that she hears the words of the Blessed Virgin, that she converses with angels who bring her messages from G od, all this may excite the credulity of some and the raillery of others, but certainly it will not cost society a drop of blood or a tear. As to the founders of religious orders, in what way are they subject to the charge of fanaticism? Let us pass in silence the profound respect which their virtues deserve, and the gratitude which humanity owes them for the inestimable benefits conferred; let us suppose that they were deceived in all their inspirations; we may certainly call this delusion, but not fanaticism. We do not find in them either fienzy or violence; they are men diffident in themselves, who, when they believe that they are called by Heaven to a great design, never commence the work without having prostrated themselves at the feet of the Sovereign Pontiff; they submit to his judgment the rules for the establishment of their orders, they ask his instruction, listen to his decision with docility, and do nothing without having obtained his permission. - How, then, do these founders of orders resemble the fanatics, who 60 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. putting themselves at the head of a furious multitude, kill, destroy, and leave everywhere behind them traces of blood and ruin? We see in the founders of religious orders men who, deeply impressed with an idea, devote themselves to realize it, however great may be the sacrifice. Their conduct constantly shows a fixed idea, which is developed according to a preconcerted plan, and is always highly social and religious in its object: above all, this is submitted to authority, maturely examined and corrected by the counsels of prudence. An impartial philosopher, whatever may be his religious opinions, may find in all this more or less illusion and prejudice, or prudence and address; but he cannot find fanaticism, for there is nothing there which resembles it. (12) CHAPTER IX. INFIDELITY AND INDIFFERENCE IN EUROPE, THE FRUITS OF PROTESTANTISM. THE fanaticism of sects, which is excited, kept alive, and nourished in Europe, by the private judgment of Protestantism, is certainly an evil of the greatest magnitude; yet it is not so mischievous or alarming as the infidelity and religious indifference for which modern society is indebted to the pretended Reformation. Brought on by the scandalous extravagances of so many sects of soiisant Christians, infidelity and religious indifference, which have their root even in the very principle of Protestantism, began to show themselves with alarming symptoms in the sixteenth century; they have acquired with time great diffusion, they have penetrated all the branches of science and literature, have produced an effect on languages, and have endangered all the conquests which civilization had gained during so many ages. Even during the sixteenth century, and amid the hot disputes and religious wars which Protestantism had enkindled, infidelity spread in an alarming manner; and it is probable that it was even more common than it appeared to be. as it was not easy to throw off the mask at a period so near to the time when religious convictions had been so deeply rooted. It is very likely that infidelity was propagated disguised under the mantle of the Reformation, and that sometimes enlisting under the banner of one sect and sometimes of another, it labored to weaken them all, in order to set up its own throne on th, general ruin of faith. It does not require a great effort of logic to pass from Protestantism to Deism; from Deism to Atheism, there is but a step; and there must have been, at the time when these errors were broached, a large number of persons with reasoning powers enough to carry them out to the fullest extent. The Christian religion, as explained by Protestants, is only a kind of philosophic system more or less reasonable; as, when fully examined, it has no divine character. How, then, can it govern a reflectirg and independent mind? Yes, one glance at the first exhibitions of Protestantism must have been enough to incline all those to religious indifference who, naturally disinclined to fanaticism, had lost the anchor of the Church's authority. When we consider the language and conduct of the sectarian leaders of that time, we are strongly inclined to suspect that they laughed at all Christian faith; that they concealed their indifference or their Atheism under strange doctrines which served as a standard, and that they propagated their writings with very bad faith, while they disguised their perfidious intention of preserving in the minds of their partisans sectarian fanaticism. Thus, listening to the dictates of good sense, the father of the famous Mon. PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITI CATHOLICITY. (i taigne, although he had seen as yet only the preludes of the Reformation, said, "that this beginning of evil would easily degenerate into execrable Atheism.' A very remarkable testimony, which has been preserved to us by his son himself, who was certainly neither weak nor hypocritical. (Essais de Montaigne, liv. ii. chap. 12.) When this man pronounced so wise a judgment on the real tendency of Protestantism, did he imagine that his own son would confirm the justness of his prediction? Everybody knows that Montaigne was one of the first skeptics that became famous in Europe. It was requisite, at that time, for men to be cautious in declaring themselves Atheists or indifferentists, among Protestants themselves; and it may readily be imagined that all unbelievers had not the boldness of Gruet; yet we may believe the celebrated theologian of Toledo, Chacon, who said at the beginning of the last third of the sixteenth century, " that the heresy of the Atheists, of those who believed nothing, had great strength in France and in other countries." Religious controversy continued to occupy the attention of all the savans of Europe, and during this time the gangrene of infidelity made great progress. This evil, from the middle of the seventeenth century, assumed a most alarming aspect. Who is not dismayed at reading tht profound thoughts of Pascal on religious indifference? and who has not felt, in reading them, the emotion which is caused in the soul by the presence of a dreadful evil? Things were now much advanced, and unbelievers were not far from being in a position, to take their rank among the schools who disputed for the upper hand in Europe. With more or less of disguise,.they had already for a long time shown themselves under the form of Socinianism; but that did not suffice, for Socinianism bore at least the name of a religious sect, and irreligion began to feel itself strong enough to appear under its own name. The last part of the seventeenth century. presents a crisis which is very remarkable with respect to religion;-a crisis which perhaps has not been well examined, although it exhibits some very remarkable facts; I allude to a lassitude of religious disputes, market by two tendencies diametrically opposed to each other, and yet very natural: one towards Catholicity and the other towards Atheism. Every one knows how much disputing there had been up to this time on religion; religious controversies were the prevailing taste, and it may be said that they formed the principal occupation not only of ecclesiastics, both Catholic and Protestant, but even of the well-educated laity. This taste penetrated the palaces of kings and princes. The natural result of so many controversies was to disclose the radical error of Protestantism: then the mind, which could not remain firm on such slippery ground, was obliged, either to adopt authority, or abandon itself to Atheism or complete indifference. these tendencies made themselves very perceptibly felt; thus it was that ate the very time when Bayle thought Europe sufficiently prepared for his infidelity and skepticism, there was going on an animated and serious correspondence for the reunion of the German Protestants with the Catholic Church.' Men of education are acquainted with the discussions which took place between the Lutheran Molanus, abbot of Lockum, and Christopher, at first Bishop of Tyna, and afterwards of Newstad. The correspondence between the two most remarkable men at that time in Europe of both communions, Bossuet and Leibnitz, is another monument of thr importance of these negotiations. The happy moment was not yet come; political considerations, which ought to have vanished in the presence of such lofty interests, exercised a mischievous influence on the great soul of Leibnitz, and he did not preserve, throughout the progress of the discussions and negotiations, the sincerity, good faith, and elevation of view, which he had evinced at the commencement. The negotiation did not succeed, but the mere fact of its existence shows clearly enough the void which was felt in Protestantism; for we cannot believe that the two most celebrated men of that communion, F 52 PPROTESTANTISM COMPARED WTTH CATHOLICITY. Molanus and Leibnitz, would have advanced so far in so important a negotiation, unless they had observed among themselves many indications of a disposition to return to the bosom of the Church. Add to this, the declaration of the Lutheran university of Helmstad in favor of the Catholic religion, and the fresh attempts at a reunion made by a Protestant prince, who addressed himself to Pope Clement XI., and you have strong reasons for believing that the Refirmation felt itself mortally wounded. If God had been willing to permit that so great a result should appear to have been effected in any way by hurman means, the deep convictions prevalent among the most distinguished Protestants might perhaps have greatly contributed to heal the wounds which had been inflicted upon religious unity by the revolutionists of the sixteenth century. But the profound wisdom of God had decided otherwise. In allowing men to pursue their own opposite and perverse inclinations, He was pleased to chastise them by means of their own pride. The tendency towards unity was no longer dominant in the next century, but gave place to a philosophic skepticism, indifferent towards all other religions, but the deadly enemy of the Catholic. It may be said that at that time there was a combination of the most fatal influences to hinder the tendency towards unity from attaining its object. Already were the Protestant sects divided and subdivided into numberless parties, and although Protestantism was thereby weakened, yet, nevertheless, it was diffused over the greater part of Europe; the germ of doubt in religious matters had inoculated the whole of European society. There was no truth which had escaped attack; no error or extravagance which had not had apostles and proselytes; and it was much to be feared that men would fall into that state of fatigue and discouragement which is the result of great efforts made without success, and.into that disgust which is always produced by endless disputes and great scandals. To complete the misfortune, and to bring to a climax the state of lassitude and disgust, there was another evil, which produced the most fatal results. The champions of Catholicity contended, with boldness and success, against the religious innovations of Protestants. Languages, history, criticism, philosophy, all that is most precious, rich, and brilliant in human knowledge, had been employed in the noblest way in this important struggle; and the great men who were most prominent among the defenders of the Church seemed to console her for the sad losses which she had sustained by the troubles of another age. But while she embraced in her arms these zealous sons, those who boasted the most of being called her children, she observed in some of them, with surprise and dread, an attitude of disguised hostility; and in their thinly veiled language and conduct she could easily perceive that they meditated giving her a fatal blow. Always asserting their submission. and their obedience, but never submitting or obeying; continually extolling the authority and divine origin of the Church, and carefully concealing their hatred of her existing laws and institutions under cover of professed zeal for the re-establishment of ancient' discipline; they sapped the foundations of morality, while they claimed to be its earnest advocates; they disguised their hypocrisy and pride under false humility and affected modesty; they called obstinacy firmness, and wilful blindness strength of mind. This rebellion presented an aspect more dangerous than any heresy; their honeyed words, studied candor, respect for antiquity, and the show of learning and knowledge, would have contributed to blind the best informed, if the innovators had not been distinguished by the constant and unfailing characteristic of all erroneous sects, viz, hatred of authority. They were seen from-time to time struggling against the declared enemies of the Church, defending, with great display of learning, the truth of her sacred dogmas. citing, with respect and deference, the writings of the holy fathers, and declaring that they adhered to tradition, and had a profound veneration for tho PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATIOLICITY. 63 decisions of councils and Popes. They particularly prided themselves on being called Catholies, however much their language and conduct were inconsistent with the na:iie. Never did they get rid of the marvellous infatuation with which they denied their existence as a sect; and thus did they throw in the way of ill-informed persons the unhappy scandal of a dogmatical dispute, going on apparently within the bosom of the Church herself. The Pope declared them heretics; all true Catholics bowed to the decision of the Vicar of Jesus Christ; from all parts of the world a voice was unanimously raised to pronounce anathema against all who did not listen to the successor of St. Peter; but they themselves, denying and eluding all, persisted in considering themselves as a body of Catholics oppressed by the spirit of relaxation, abuse, and intrigue. This scandal gave the finishing stroke to the leading of men astray, and the fatal gangrene which was infecting European society soon developed itself with frightful rapidity. The religious disputes, the multitude and variety of sects, the animosity which they showed against each other, all contributed to disgust with religion itself whoever were not held fast by the anchor of authority. To establish indifference as a system, atheism as a creed, and impiety as a fashion, there was only wanting a man laborious enough to collect, unite, and present in a body all the numerous materials which were scattered in a multitude of works; a man who knew how to give to all this a philosophical complexion suitable to the prevailing taste, and who could give to sophistry and declamation that seductive appearance, that deceptive form and dazzling show, by which the productions of genius are always marked, in the midst even of their wildest vagaries. Such a man appeared in the person of Bayle. The noise which his famous dictionary made in the world, and the favor which it enjoyed from the beginning, show how well the author had taken advantage of his opportunity. The dictionary of Bayle is one of those books which, considered apart from their scientific and literary merit, always serve to denote a remarkable epoch, because they present, together with the fruits of the past, the clear perception of a long future. The author of such a work is not distinguished so much on account of his own merit, as because he has known how to become the representative of ideas previously diffused in society, but floating about in a state of uncertainty; and yet his name recalls a vast history, of which he is the personification. The publication of Bayle's work may be regarded as the solemn inauguration of the chair of infidelity in Europe. The sophists of the eighteenth century found at hand an abundant repository of facts and arguments; but to render the thing complete, there was wanting a hand capable of retouching the old paintings, of restoring their faded colors, and of shedding over all the charms of imagination and the refinement of wit; there was wanting a guide to lead mankind by a flowery path to the borders of the abyss. Scarcely had Bayle descended into the tomb, when there appeared above the literary horizon a young man, whose great talents were equalled by his malice and audacity; Voltaire. It was necessary to draw the reader's attention to the period which I have just described, to show him how great was the influence exercised by Protestantism in producing and establishing in Europe the irreligion, atheism, and fatal indifference which have caused so many evils in modern society. I do not mean to charge all Protestants with impiety; and I willingly acknowledge the sincerity and firmness of many of their most illustrious men, in struggling against the progress of irreligion. I am not ignorant that men sometimes adopt a principle and repudiate its consequences, and that it would, therefore, be very unjust to class them with those who openly accept those consequences; but on the other hand, however painful it may be to Protestants to avow that their system leads to atheism, it is nevertheless a fact which cannot be denied. All that they can claim of me on this point is, not to criminate their intentions; 64 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. after that, they cannot complain if, guided by the instructions of history and philosophy, I develope their fundamental principle to the fullest extent. It would be useless to sketch, even in the most rapid manner, what has passed in Europe since the appearance of Voltaire: the events are so recent, and have been so often discussed, that all that I could say would be only a useless repetition. I shall better attain my object by offering some remarks on the actual state of religion in Protestant countries. Amid so many revolutions, and when so many heads were turned; when all the foundations of society were shaken, and the strongest institutions were torn out of the soil in which they had been so deeply rooted; when even Catholic truth itself could not have been sustained without the manifest aid of the arm of the Most High, we may imagine the fate of the fragile edifice of Protestantism, exposed, like all the rest, to so many and such violent attacks. No one is ignorant of the numberless sects which abound in Great Britain, of the deplorable condition of faith among the Swiss Protestants, even on the most important points. That there might be no doubt as to the real state of the Protestant religion in Germany, that is, in its native country, where it was first established as in its dearest patrimony, the Protestant minister, Baron Starck, has taken care to tell us, that " in Germany there is not one single point of Christian faith which has not been openly attacked by the Protestait ministers themselves." The real state of Protestantism appears to me to be truly and forcibly depicted by a curious idea of J. Heyer, a Protestant minister. Heyer published, in 1818, a work entitled Coup d'ceil sur les Confessions de Foi; not knowing how to get out of the difficulty in which all Protestants found themselves placed when they had to choose a symbol, he proposed the simple expedient of getting rid of all symbols. The only way that Protestantism has of preserving itself, is to violate as much as possible its own fundamental principle, by withdrawing the right of private judgment, inducing the people to remain faithful to the opinions in which they have been educated, and carefully concealing from them the inconsistency into which they fall, when they submit to the authority of a private individual, after having rejected the authority of the Catholic church. But things are not taking this course; and in spite of the efforts of some Protestants to follow it, Bible Societies, working with a zeal worthy of a better cause, in promoting among all classes the private interpretation of the Bible, would suffice to keep alive always the spirit of inquiry. This diffusion of the Bible operates as a constant appeal to private judgment, which, after perhaps causing many days of sorrow and mourning to society, will eventually destroy the remains of Protestantism. All this has not escaped the notice of its disciples; and some of the most remarkable among them haveraised their voices to point out the danger. (13) CHAPTER X. CAUSES OP THE CONTINUANCE OF PROTESTANTISM. AFTER having clearly shown the intrinsic weakness of Protestantism, it is natural to ask this question: If it be so feeble, owing to the radical defects of its constitution, why has it not by this time completely disappeared? If it bear in its own breast the seeds of death, how has it been able so long to withstand such powerful adversaries, as Catholicity, on, the one hand, and irreligion or Atheism, on the other? In order to resolve this question satisfactorily, it is necessary to consider Protestantism in two points of view; as embodying a fixed creed, and as expressing a number of sects, who, in spite of their numerous mutual differences, agree in calling themselves Christians, and preserve a shadow of Christianity, although they reject the authority of the Church. It, PROTESTANTISMI COMPARED WITH CAlrfoLICITY. 65 is necessary to consider Protestantism in this double point of view, since its founders, while endeavoring to destroy the authority and dogmas of the Roman Church, were compelled to form a system of doctrines to serve as a symbol for their followers. Considered in the first aspect, it has almost entirely disappeared; we should rather say it scarcely ever had existence. This truth is sufficiently evident from what I have said of the variations and actual condition of Protestantism in the various countries of Europe; time has shown how much the pretended Reformers were deceived, when they fancied that they could fix the columns of Hercules of the human mind, to repeat the expression of Madame de Stail. Who now defends the doctrines of Luther and Calvin? Who respects the limits which they prescribed? What Protestant Church distinguishes itself by the ardor of its zeal in preserving any particular dogmas? What Protestant now holds the divine mission of Luther, or believes, the Pope to be Antichrist? Who watches over the purity of doctrine, and points out errors? Who opposes the torrent of sectarianism? Do we find, in their writings, or in their discourses, the energetic tones of conviction, or the zeal of truth? In fine, what a wide difference do we find when we compare the Protestant Church with the Catholic! Inquire into the faith of the latter, and you will hear from thle mouth of Gregory XVI., the successor of St. Peter, the same that Luther heard from Leo X. Compare the doctrine of Leo X. with that of his predecessors, you will always find it the same up to the Apostles, and to Jesus Christ himself. If you attempt to assail a dogma, if you try to attack the purity of morals, the voice'of the ancient Fathers will denounce your errors, and in the middle of the nineteenth century you will imagine that the old Leos and Gregories are risen from the tomb. If your intentions are good, you will find Indulgence; if your merits are great, you will be treated with respect; if you occupy an elevated position in the world, you will have attention paid to you. But if you attempt to abuse your talents by introducing novelty in doctrine; if, by your power, you aspire to demand a modification of faith; and if, to avoid troubles or prevent schism, or conciliate any one, you ask for a compromise or even an ambiguous explanation; the answer of the successor of St. Peter will be, "Never! faith is a sacred deposit which we cannot alter; truth is immutable; it is one:" and to this reply of the Vicar of Jesus Christ, which with a word will banish all your hopes, will be added those of the modern Athanasiuses, Gregories of Nazianzen, Amlbroses, Jeromes, and Augustins. Always the same firmness in the same faith, the same unchangeableness, the same energy in preserving the sacred deposit intact, in defending it against the attacks of error, in teaching it to the faithful in all its purity, and in transmitting it unaltered to future generations. Will it be said that this is obstinacy, blindness, and fanaticism? But, eighteen centuries gone by, the revolutions of empires, the most fearful catastrophes, an infinite variety of ideas and manners, the most severe persecutions, the darkness of ignorance, the conflicts of passion, the lights of knowledge,-none of these have been able to enlighten this blindness, to bend this obstinacy, or extinguish this fanaticism. Certainly a reflecting Protestant, one of those who know how to rise above the prejudices of education, when fixing his eyes on this picture, the truth of which he cannot but acknowledge, if he is well informed on the question, will teel strong doubts arise within him as to the truth of the instruction he has received; he will at least feel a desire of examining more closely this great prodigy which the Catholic Church presents to us. But to return. We see the Protestant sects melting away daily, and this dissolution must constantly increase.; nevertheless, we have no reason to be astonished that Protestantism, inasmuch as it consists of a number of sects who preserve the name and some remains of Christianity, does not wholly disappear; for how 9 F2 66 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. could it disappear? Either Protestant nations must be completely swallowed up by irreligion or atheism, or they must give up Christianity and adopt one of the religions which are established in other parts of the world. Now both these suppositions are impossible; therefore this false form of Christianity has been and will be preserved, in some shape or other, until Protestants return to the bosom of the Church. Let us develope these ideas. Why cannot Protestant nations be completely swallowed up by irreligion and atheism, or indifference? Because such a misfortune may happen to an individual, but not to a nation. By means of false books, erroneous reasonings, and continual efforts, some individuals may extinguish the lively sentiments of their hearts, stifle the voice of conscience, and trample under foot the dictates of common sense; but a nation cannot do so. A people always preserves a large fund of candor and docility, which, amid the most fatal errors and even the most atrocious crimes, compels it to lend an attentive ear to the inspirations of nature. Whatever may be the corruption of morals, whatever may be the errors of opinion, there will never be more than a small number of men found capable of struggling for a long time against themselves, in the attempt to eradicate from their hearts that fruitful germ of good feelings, that precious seed of virtuous thoughts, with which the beneficent hand of the Creator has enriched'our souls. The conflagration of the passions, it is true, produces lamentable prostration, and sometimes terrible explosions; but when the fire is extinguished, man returns to himself, and his mind becomes again accessible to the voice of reason and virtue. An attentive study of society proves that the number of men is happily very small who are, as it were, steeled against truth and virtue; who reply with frivolous sophistry to the admonitions of good sense; who oppose with cold stoicism the sweetest and most generous inspirations of nature, aifd venture to display, as an illustration of philosophy, firmness, and elevation of mind, the ignorance, obstinacy, and barrenness of an icy heart. The generality of mankind, more simple, more candid, more natural, are consequently ill-suited to a system of atheism, or indifference. Such a system may take possession of the proud mind of a learned visionary; it may be adopted, as a convenient opinion, by dissipated youth; and in times of agitation, it may influence a few fiery spirits; but it will never be able to establish itself in society as a normal condition. No, by no means. An individual may be irreligious, but families and society never will. Without a basis on which the social edifice must rest; without a great creative idea, whence will flow the ideas of reason, virtue, justice, obligation, and right, which are as necessary to the existence and preservation of society as blood and nourishment are to the life of the individual, society would be destroyed;. without the sweet ties by which religious ideas unite together the members of a family, without the heavenly harmony which they infuse into all its connections, the family would cease to exist, or at least would be only a rude and transient union, resembling' the intercourse of animals. God has happily gifted all his creatures with a marvellous instinct of self-preservation. Guided by that instinct, families and society repudiate with indignation those degrading ideas which, blasting by their fatal breath all the germs of life, breaking all ties, upsetting all laws, make both of them retrograde towards the most abject barbarism, and finish by scattering their members like dust before the wind. The repeated lessons of experience ought to have convinced certain philosophers that these ideas and feelings, engraven on the heart of man by the finger of the Author of nature, cannot be eradicated by declamation or sophistry. If a few ephemeral triumphs have occasionally flattered their pride, and made them conceive false hopes of the result of their efforts, the course of events has soon shown them. that to pride themselves on these triumphs was to act like a man PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 67 who, on account of having succeeded in infusing unnatural sentiments into the hearts of a few mothers, would flatter himself that he has banished maternal love from the world. Society (I do not mean the populace or the commonalty) -society will be religious, even at the risk of being superstitious; if it does not believe in reasonable things, it will in extravagant ones; and if it have not a divine religion, it will have a human one: to suppose the contrary, is to dream; to struggle against this tendency, is to struggle against an eternal law; to attempt to restrain it, is to attempt to restrain with a weak arm a body launched with an immense force-the arm will be destroyed, but the body will continue its course. Men may call this superstition, fanaticism, the result of error; but to talk thus can only serve to console them for their failure. Since, then, religion is a real necessity, we have therein an explanation of the phenpmenon which history and experience present to us, namely, that religion never wholly disappears, and that when changes take place, the two rival religions, during their struggles, more or less protracted, occupy successively the same ground. AThe consequence is, that Protestantism cannot entirely disappear unless another religion takes its place. Now, as in the actual state of civilization, no religion can replace it but the Catholic, it is evident that Protestant sects will continue to occupy, with more or less variation, the countries which they have gained. Indeed, how is it possible, in the present state of civilization among Protestant nations, that the follies of the Koran, or the absurdities of idolatry, should have any chance of success among them? The spirit of Christianity circulates in the veins of modern society; its seal is set upon all legislation; its light is shed upon all branches of knowledge; its phraseology is found in all languages; its precepts regulate morals; habits and manners have assumed its form; the fine arts breathe its perfume, and all the monuments of genius are full of its inspirations. Christianity, in a word, pervades all parts of that great, varied, and fertile civilization, which is the glory of modern society. How then, is it possible for a religion entirely to disappear which possesses, with the most venerable antiquity, so many claims to gratitude, so many endearing ties, and so many glorious recollections? How could it give place, among Christian nations, to one of those religions which, at the first glance, show the finger of man, and indicate, as their distinctive mark, degradation and debasement? Although the essential principle of Protestantism saps the foundations of the Christian religion, although it disfigures its beauty, and lowers its sublimity, yet the remains which it preserves of Christianity, its idea of God, and its maxims of morality, raise it far above all the systems of philosophy, and all the other religions of the world. If, then, Protestantism has preserved some shadow of the Christian religion, it was because, looking at the condition of the nations who took part in the schism, it was impossible for the Christian name wholly to disappear; and not on account of any principle of life contained in the bosom of the pretended Reformation. On the other hand, consider the efforts of politicians, the natural attachment of ministers to their own interests, the illusions of pride which flatter men with the freedom they will enjoy in the absence of all authority, the remains of old prejudices, the power of education, and such like causes, and you will find a complete solution of the question. Then you will no longer be surprised that Protestantism continues to retain possession of many of those countries where it unfortunately became deeply rooted. 68 CHAPTER XI. THE POSITIVE DOCTRINES OF PROTESTANTISM REPUGNANT TO TIHE INSTINCT OF CIVILIZATION. THE best proof of the extreme weakness of Protestantism, considered as a body of doctrine, is the little influence which its positive doctrines have exerci.cd in European civilization. I call its positive doctrines those which it attempts to establish as its own; and I distinguish them thus from its other doctrines, which I call negative, because they are nothing but the negation of uuthority. The latter found favor on account of their conformity with the inconstancy and changeableness of the human mind; but the others, which have not the same means of success, have all disappeared with their authors, and are, now plunged in oblivion. The only part of Christianity which has been preserved among Protestants, is that which was necessary to prevent European civilization from losing among them its nature and character; and this is the reason why the doctrines which had too direct a' tendency to alter the nature of this civilization have been repudiated, we should rather say, despised by it. There is a circumstance here well worthy of attention, and which has not perhaps been noticed, viz. the fate of the doctrine heldoby the first reformers with respect to free-will. It is well known that one of the first and most important errors of Luther and Calvin consisted in denying free-will. We find this fatal doctrine professed in the works which they have left us. Does it not seem that this doctrine ought to have preserved its credit among the Protestants, and that they ought to have fiercely maintained it, since such is commonly the ease with errors which serve as a nucleus in the formation of a sect? It seems, also, that Protestantism being widely spread, and deeply rooted in several countries of Europe, this fatalist doctrine ought to have exercised a strong influence on the legislation of Protestant nations. Wonderful as it is, such has not been the case; European moralists have despised it; legislation has not adopted it as a basis; civilization has not allowed itself to be directed. by a principle which sapped all the foundations of morality, and which, if once applied to morals and laws, would have substituted for European civilization and dignity the barbarism and debasement of Mahometanism. There is no doubt that this fatal doctrine has perverted some' individuals; it has been adopted by sects more or less numerous; and it cannot be denied that it has affected the morality of some nations. But it is also certain, that, in the generality of the great human family, governments, tribunals, administration, legislation, science, and morals, have not listened to this horrible doctrine of Luther,-a doctrine which strips man of his free will, which makes God the author of sin, which charges the Creator with the responsibility of all the crimes of His creatures, and represents Him as a tyrant, by affirming that His orecepts are impossible; a doctrine which monstrously confounds the ideas of good and evil, and removes all stimulus to good deeds, by teaching that faith is sufficient for salvation, and that all the good works of the just are only sins. Public opinion, good sense, and morality here side with Catholicity. Those even who in theory embrace these fatal religious doctrines, isually reject them in practice; this is because Catholic instruction on these important points has made so deep an impression on them; because so strong an ins'inct of civilization has been communicated to European society by the Catholic religion. Thus the Church, by repudiating the destructive errors tatght by Protestantism, preserved society from being debased by these fatalist doctrines.'he Church bormed a barrier against the despotism which is enthroned wherever the sense of dignity is lost; she was a fence against the demoralization which always spreads whenever men think themselves bound by blind necessity, as by o PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 69 iron chain; she also freed the human mind from the state of abjection into which it falls whenever it thinks itself deprived of the government of its own conduct, and of the power of influencing the course of events. In condemning those errors of Luther, which were the bond of Protestantism at its birth, the Pope raised the alarm against an irruption of barbarism into the order of ideas; he saved morality, laws, public order, and society; the Vatican, by securing the noble sentiment of liberty in the sanctuary of conscience, preserved the dignity of man; by struggling against Protestant ideas, by defending the sacred deposit confided to it by its Divine Master, the Roman See became the tutelary divinity of future civilization. Reflect on these great truths, understand them thoroughly, you who speak of religious disputes with cold indifference, with apparent mockery and pity, as if they were only scholastic puerilities. Nations do not live on bread alone; they live also on ideas, on maxims, which, converted into spiritual aliment, give them greatness, strength, and energy,, or, on the contrary, weaken them, reduce them, and condemn them to stupidity. Look over the face of the globe, examine the periods of human history, compare times with times, and nations with nations, and you will see that the Church, by giving so much importance to the preservation of these transcendent truths, by accepting no compromise on this point, has understood and realized better than any'other teacher, the elevated and salutary maxim, that truth ought to reign in the world; that on the order of ideas depends the order of events, and that when these great problems are called in question, the destinies of humanity are involved. Let us recapitulate what we have said; the essential principle of Protestantism is one of destruction; this is the cause of its incessant variations, of its dissolution and annihilation. As a particular religion it no longer exists, for it has no peculiar faith, no positive character, no government, nothing that is essential to form an existence; Protestantism is only a negative. If there is any thing to be found in it of a positive nature, it is nothing more than vestiges and ruins; all is without force, without action, without the spirit of life. It cannot show an edifice raised by its own hands; it cannot, like Catholicity, stand in the midst of its vast works and say, " These are mine." Protestantism can only sit down on a heap of ruins, and say with truth, " I have made this pile." As long as sectarian fanaticism lasted, as long as this flame, enkindled by furious declamation, was kept alive by unhappy circumstances, Protestantism showed a certain degree of force, which, although it was not the sign of vigorous life, at least indicated the convulsive energy of delirium. But that period has passed, the action of time has dispersed the elements that fed the flame, and none of the attempts which have been made to give to the Reformation the character of a work of God, have been able to conceal the fact that it was the work of human passions. Let us not be deceived by the efforts which are now being made; what is acting under our eyes is not living Protestantism, it is the operation of false philosophy, perhaps of policy, sometimes of sordid interest disguised under the name of policy. Every one knows how powerful Protestantism was in exciting disturbances and causing disunion. It is on this account that evil-minded men search in the bed of this exhausted torrent for some remains of its impure waters, and knowing them to contain a deadly poison, present them to the unsuspecting in a golden cup. But it is in vain for weak man to struggle against the arm of the Almignty, God will not abandon His work. Notwithstanding all his attempts to deface the work of God, man cannot blot out the eternal characters which distinguish truth from error. Truth in itself is strong and robust: as it is the ensemble of the relations which unite things together, it is strongly connected with them, and cannot be separated either by the efforts of man or by the revolution of time. Error, on the contrary, the lying image of the great ties which bind to X7 0 PROT.STANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. gether the compact mass of the universe, stretches over its usurped domain like those dead branches of the forest which, devoid of sap, afford neither freshness nor verdure, and only serve to impede the advance of the traveller. Confiding men, do not allow yourselves to be seduced by brilliant appearances, pompous discourse, or false activity. Truth is open, modest, without suspicion, because it is pure and strong; error is hypocritical and ostentatious, because it is false and weak. Truth resembles a woman of real beauty, who, conscious of her charms, despises the affectation. of ornament; error, on the contrary, paints and ornaments herself, because she is ugly, without expression, without grace, without dignity. Perhaps you may be pleased with its laborious activity. Know, then, that it has no strength but when it is the rallying cry of a faction; then, indeed, it is rapid in action and fertile in violent measures. It is like the meteor which explodes and vanishes, leaving behind it nothing but darkness, death, and destruction; truth, on the contrary, like the sun, sends forth its bright and steady beams, fertilizes with its genial warmth, and sheds on every side life, joy, and beauty. CHAPTER XII. THE EFFECTS WHICH THE INTRODUCTION OF PROTESTANTISM INTO SPAIN WOULD HAVE PRODUCED. IN order to judge of the real effect which the introduction of Protestant doctrines would have had in Spain, we shall do well, in the first place, to take a survey of the present state of religion in Europe. In spite of the confusion of ideas which is one of the prevailing characteristics of the. age, it is undeniable that the spirit of infidelity and irreligion has lost much of its strength, and that where it still exists it has merged into indifference, instead of preserving its systematic form of the last century. With the lapse of time declamation ceases; men grow tired of continually repeating the same insulting language: their minds resist the intolerance and bad faith of sects; systems betray their emptiness, opinions their erroneousness, judgments their precipitation, and reasonings their want of exactitude. Time shows their counterfeit intentions, their deceptive statements, the littleness of their ideas, and the mischievousness of their projects; truth begins to recover its empire, things regain their real names, and, thanks to the new direction of the public mind, that which before was considered innocent and generous is now looked upon as criminal and vile. The deceitful masks are taken off, and falsehood is discovered surrounded by the discredit which ought always to have accompanied it. Irreligious ideas, like all those which are prevalent in an advanced state of society, would not, and could not be confined to mere speculation; they invaded the domain of practice, and labored to gain the-upper hand in all branches of administration and politics. But the revolution which they produced in society became fatal to themselves; for there is nothing which better exposes the faults and errors of a system, and undeceives men on the subject, than the touchstone of expeiience. There is in our minds a certain power of viewing an object under a variety of aspects, and an unfortunate aptitude for supporting the most extravagant proposition by a multitude of sophisms. In mere disputation, it is difficult for the most reasoning minds to keep clear of the snares of sophistry. But when we come to experience, it is otherwise; the mind is silent, and facts speak; and if the experience has been on a large scale, and applied to objects of great interest and importance, it is difficult for the most specious arguments to counteract the convincing eloquence'of the result. Hence it is that a man of much experience obtains an instinct so sure and delicate, that when a system PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 71 is but explained he can point out all its inconveniences. Inexperience, pre. sumptuous and prejudiced, appeals to argument in support of its doctrines; but good sense, that precious and inestimable quality, shakes its head, shrugs its shoulders, and with a tranquil smile leaves its prediction to be tested by time. It is not necessary now to insist on the practical results of those doctrines of which infidelity was the motto; we have said enough on that subject. Suffice it to say, that those same men who seem to belong to the last century by their principles, interests, recollections, or for other reasons, have been'obliged to modify their doctrines, to limit their principles, to palliate their propositions, to cool the warmth and passion of their invectives; and when they wish to give a mark of their esteem and veneration for those writers who were the delight of their youth, they are compelled to declare " that those men were great philosophers, but philosophers of the cabinet;" as if in reality what they call the knowledge of' the cabinet was not the most dangerous ignorance. It is certain that these attempts have had the effect of throwing discredit on irreligion as a system. If people do not regard it with horror, at least they look upon it with mistrust. Irreligion has labored in all the branches of science, in the vain hope that the heavens would cease to relate the glories of God, that the earth would disown Him who laid its foundations, and that all nature would give testimony against the Lord who gave it existence and life. These same labors have banished the scandalous division which had begun between religion and science; so that the ancient accents of the man of Hus have again resounded, without dishonor to science, in the mouths of men in the nineteenth century, and what shall we say of the triumphs of religion in all that is noble, tender, and sublime on earth? How grand are the operations of Providence displayed therein! Admirable dispensation! The mysterious hand which governs the universe seems to hold in reserve for every great crisis of society an extraordinary man. At the proper moment this man presents himself; he advances, himself ignorant whither he is going, but' he advances with a firm step towards the accomplishment of the high mission for which Providence has destined him. Atheism was bathing France in a sea of tears and blood; an unknown man silently traverses the ocean. While the violence of the tempest rends the sails of his vessel, he listens attentively to the hurricane-he is lost in the contemplation of the majesty of the heavens. Wandering in the solitudes of America, he asks of the wonders of creation the name of their Author; the thunder on the confines of the desert, the low murmuring of the forests, and the beauties of nature answer him with canticles of love and harmony. The view of a solitary cross reveals to him mysterious secrets; the traces of an unknown missionary awaken important recollections which connect the new world with the old; a monument in ruins, the hut of a savage, excite in his mind thoughts which penetrate to the foundations of society and to the heart of man. Intoxicated with these spectacles, his mind full of sublime conceptions, and his heart inundated with the charms of so much beauty, this man returns to his native soil. What does he find there? The bloody traces of Atheism; the ruins and ashes of ancient temples devoured by the flames or destroyed by violence; the remains of a multitude of innocent victims, buried in the graves which formerly afforded an asylum to persecuted Christians. He observes, however, that something is in agitation; he sees that religion is about to redescend upon France, like consolation upon the unfortunate, or the breath of life upon a corpse. From that moment he hears on all sides a concert of celestial harmony; the inspirations of meditation and solitude revive and ferment in his great soul; transported out of himself, and ravished into ecstasy, he sings with a tongue of fire the glories of religion, he reveals the delicacy and beauty of the relations between religion and nature, and in surpassing language he points out 72 PROTESTANTISM CQMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. to astonished men the mysterious golden chain which connects the heavens and the earth. That man was Chateaubriand. It must, however, be confessed, that the confusion which has been introduced into ideas cannot be corrected in a short time, and that it is not easy tt eradicate the deep traces of the ravages of irreligion. Men's minds, it is true, are tired of the irreligious system; society, which had lost its balance, is generally ill at ease; the family feels its ties relaxed, and individuals sigh after a ray of light, a drop of hope and consolation. But where shall the world find the remedy which is wanting? Will it follow the best road-the only road? Will it re-enter the fold of the Catholic Church? Alas! God alone knows the secrets of the future; He alone has clearly unfolded before His'eyes the great events which are no doubt awaiting humanity. He alone knows what will be the result of that activity, of that energy, which again urges men to the examination of great political and religious questions; and He alone knows what, to future generations, will be the result of the triumphs obtained by religion, in tho fine arts, in literature, in science, in politics, in all the operations carried on by the human mind. As to us, carried away as we are by the rapid and precipitate course of revolution, hardly have we time to cast a fleeting glance upon the chaos in which our country is involved. What can we confidently predict? All that we can be sure of is, that we are in an age of disquietude, of agitation, of transition; that the multiplied examples and warnings of so many disappointed expectations, the fruits of fearful revolutions and unheard-of catastrophes, have everywhere thrown discredit upon irreligious and disorganizing doctrines, without having established the legitimate empire of true religion. Hearts sick of so many misfortunes are willingly open to hope; but minds are in a state of great uncertainty as to the future: perhaps they even anticipate a new series of calamities. Owing to revolutions, to the efforts of industry, to the activity and extension of commerce, to the progress and prodigious diffusion of printing, to scientific discoveries, to the ease, rapidity, and universality of communication, to the taste for travelling, to the dissolving action of Protestantism, of incredulity, and skepticism, the human mind certainly now presents one of the most singular phases of its history. Reason, imagination, and the heart are in a state of agitation, of movement, and of extraordinary development, and show us at the same time the most singular contrasts, the most ridiculous extravagances, and the most absurd contradictions. Observe the sciences, and you will no longer find those lengthened labors, that indefatigable patience, that calm and tranquil progress, which characterized these studies at other epochs; but you will find there a spirit of observation, and a tendency to place questions in that transcendental point of view where may be discovered the relations subsisting between them, the ties by which they are connected, and the way in which they throw light upon each other. Questions of religion, of politics, of legislation, of morals, of government, are all mingled, stand prominently forward, and give to the horizon of science a grandeur and immensity which it did not previously possess. This progress, this confusion, this chaos, if you like to call it so, is a fact which must be taken into account in studying the spirit of the age, in examining the religious condition of the time; for it is not the work of a single man, or the effect of accident; it is the result of a multitude of causes, the fruit of a great number of facts; it is an expression of the present state of intelligence; a symptom of strength and disease, an announcement of change and of transition, perhaps a sign of consolation, perhaps a presage of misfortune. And who has not observed the fertility of imagination and unbounded reach of thought in that literature, so various, so irregular, and so vague, but at the same time so rich in fine images, in-delicate feeling, and in bold and generous thought? You may talk as much as you please of the debasement of science, PRQTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY 73 of the falling off in study. You may speak in a tone of derision of the lights of the age, and turn with regret to ages more studious and more learned; there will be some exaggeration,'truth and error, in all this, as there always is in declamation of this kind; but whatever may be the degree of utility belonging to the present labors of the human mind, never, perhaps, was there a time when it displayed more activity and energy, never was it agitated by a movement so general, so lively, so various, and never, perhaps, did it desire, with a more excusable curiosity and inpatience, to raise a part of the veil which covers the boundless future. What will be able to govern elements so powerful and so opposite? What can calm this tempestuous sea? What will give the union, the connection, the consistency necessary to form, out of these repulsive and discordant elements, a whole compact and capable of resisting the action of time? WTill this be done by Protestantism, with its fundamental principle which establishes and diffuses and sanctions the dissolving principle of private interpretation in matters of religion, and realizes this unhappy notion by circulating among all classes of society copies of the Bible? Nations numerous, proud of their power, vain of their knowledge, rendered dissipated by pleasure, refined byluxury, continually exposed to the powerful influence of the press, and possessing means of communication which would have appeared fabulous to their ancestors; nations in whom all the violent passions have an object, all intrigues an existence, all corruptions a veil, all crimes a title, all errors an advocate, all interests a support; nations which, warned and deceived, still vacillate in a state of dreadful uncertainty between truth and falsehood; sometimes looking at the torch of truth as if they meant to be guided by its light, and then again seduced by an ignis fatuus; sometimes making an effort to rule the storm, and then abandoning themselves to its violence; modern nations show us a picture as extraordinary as it is interesting, where hopes, fears, prognostics, and conjectures have free scope, and nobody can pretend to predict with accuracy, and the wise man must await in silence the denouement marked out in the secret decrees of God, where alone are clearly written the events of all time, and the future destinies of men. But it may be easily understood that Protestantism, on account of its essentially dissolving nature, is incapable of producing any thing in morals or reli gion to increase the happiness of nations, for it is impossible for this happiness to exist as long as men's minds are at war on the most important questions which can. occupy them. When the observer, amid this chaos and obscurity, seeks for a ray of light to illuminate the world-for a powerful principle capable of putting an end to so much confusion and anarchy, and of bringing back men's minds to the path of truth, Catholicity immediately presents herself to him, as the only source of all these benefits. When we consider with what Hcla. and with what power Catholicity maintains herself against all the unprecedented attempts which are made to destroy her, our hearts are filled with hope and consolation; and we feel inclined to hail this divine religion, and to congratulate her on the new triumph which she is about to achieve on earth. There was a time when Europe, inundated by a torrent of barbarians, saw at once overwhelmed all the monuments of ancient civilization and refinement. Legislators and their laws, the empire and its power and splendor, philosophers and the sciences, the arts and their chef-d'ceuvres, all disappeared; and those immense regions, where had flourished all the civilization and refinement that had been gained during so many ages, were suddenly plunged into ignorance and barbarism. Nevertheless, the spark of light which had appeared to tlu world in Palestine, continued to shine amid the chaos: in vain did whirlwinds threaten to extinguish it; kept alive by the breath of the Eternal, it continued to shine. Ages rolled away, and it appeared with greater brilliancy; and 10 C 71 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY when, perchance, the nations only expected a beam of light to guide them in the darkness, they found a resplendent sun, everywhere diffusing life and light: and who shall say that there is not reserved for her in the secrets of the Eternal, another triumph more difficult, but not less useful, not less brilliant? If in other times that religion instructed ignorance, civilized barbarism, polished rudeness, softened ferocity, and preserved society from being always the prey of the fiercest brutality and the most degrading stupidity, will it be less glorious for her to correct ideas, to harmonize and refine feelings, to establish the eternal principles of society, to curb the passions, to remove animosities, to remove excesses, to govern all minds and hearts? How honorable will it be to her, if, while regulating all things, and unceasingly stimulating all kinds of knowledge and improvement, she can inspire with a proper spirit of moderation that society which so many elements, devoid of central attraction, threaten every moment with dissolution and death! It is not given to man to penetrate the future; but in the same way as the physical world would be broken up by a terrible catastrophe, if it were deprived for a moment of the fundamental principle which gives unity, order, and concert to the various movements of the system; in the same way, if society, full as it is of motion, of communication, and life, were not placed under the direction of a constant and universal regulating principle, we could not fix our eyes on the lot of future generations without the greatest alarm. There is, however, a fact which is consoling in the highest degree, viz. the wonderful progress which Catholicity has made in different countries. It is gaining strength in France and Belgium: the obstinacy with which it is combated in the north of Europe shows how much it is feared. In England its progress has been recently so great that it would not be credited without the most irresistible evidence; and in the foreign missions it has shown an extent of enterprise and fruitfulness, worthy of the time of its greatest ascendency and power. When other nations tend towards unity, shall we commit the gross mistake of adopting schism? at a time when other nations would be happy to find within their bosoms a vital principle capable of restoring the power which incredulity has destroyed, shall Spain, which preserves Catholicity, and alone possesses it full and complete, allow the germ of death to be introduced into her bosom thereby rendering impossible the cure of her evils, or rather entailing on herself complete and certain ruin? Amid the moral regeneration towards which nations are advancing, seeking to quit the painful position in which they have been placed by irreligious doctrines, is it possible to overlook the immense advantage which Spain still preserves over most of them? Spain is one of those least affected by the gangrene of irreligion; she still preserves religious unity, that inestimable inheritance of a long line of ages. Is it possible to overlook the advantage of that unity if properly made use of, that unity which is mixed up with all our glories, which awakens such noble recollections, and which may be made so wonderful an instrument in the regeneration of social order? If I am asked my opinion of the nearness of the danger, and if I think the present attempts of Protestants have any probability of success, I must draw a distinction in my reply. Protestantism is extremely weak, both on account of its own nature, and of its age and decaying condition. In endeavoring to introduce itself into Spain, it will have to contend with an adversary full of life and strength, and deeply rooted in the soil. This is the reason why I think that its direct action is not to be feared; and yet, if it should succeed in establishing itself in any part of our country, however limited may be its domain, it is sure to produce fearful results. It is evident that we shall then have in the midst of us a new apple of discord, and it is not difficult to foresee that collisions will frequently arise. Protestantism in Spain, besides its intrinsic weakness, will PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 75 labor under the disadvantage of not finding its natural aliment. Hence it will be obliged to take advantage of any support that is offered; it will immediately become the point of reunion for the discontented; and although failing in its intended object, it will succeed in becoming the nucleus of new parties and the banner of factions. Scandal, strife, demoralization, troubles, and perhaps catastrophes,-such will be the immediate and infallible results of the introduction of Protestantism among us. On this point I appeal to the candid opinion of every man who is well acquainted with Spain. But this is not all: the question is enlarged, and acquires an incalculable importarnce, if we consider it with reference to foreign politics. What a lever will be afforded to foreigners for all kinds of. attempts in our unhappy country! How gladly will those, who are perhaps on the look-out for such an aid, avail themselves of it! There is in Europe a nation remarkable for her immense power, and worthy of respect on account of the great progress which she has made in the arts and sciences; a nation that holds in her hands powerful means of action in all parts of the world, and knows how to use them with wonderful discretion and sagacity. As that nation has taken the lead in modern times in passing through all the phases of political and religious revolution, and has seen, during fearful convulsions, the passions in all their nakedness, and crime in all its forms, she is better acquainted than all others with their causes. Not misled by the vain names under which, at such periods, the lowest passions and the most sordid interests disguise themselves, she is too much on her guard to allow the troubles which have inundated other countries with tears and blood, to be easily excited within herself. Her internal peace is not disturbed by the agitation and heat of disputes; although she may expect to have to encounter, sooner or later, difficulties and embarrassments, she enjoys, in the mean time, the tranquillity which is secured to her by her constitution, her manners, her riches —and, above all, by the ocean which surrounds her. Placed in so advantageous a position, that nation watches the progress of others, for the purpose of attaching themi to her car by golden chains, if they are simple enough to listen to her flattery; at least she attempts to hinder their advance, when a noble independence is about to free them from her influence. Always attentive to her own aggrandizement, by means of commerce and the arts, and by a policy eminently mercantile, she hides her self-interest under all sorts of disguises; and although religion and politics, where she has to do with another people, are quite indifferent to her, she knows how to make an adroit use of these powerful arms, to make friends, to defeat her enemies, and to enclose all within the net of commerce, which she is always extending in all quarters of the world. Her sagacity must necessarily have perceived how much progress she will have made in adding Spain to the number of her colonies, when she has persuaded the Spanish people to fraternize with her in religion; not so much on account of the sympathy which such a fraternization would establish between them, as because she would find therein a sure method of stripping the Spanish people of that peculiar character and grave appearance which distinguishes them from all others, by depriving them of the only national and regenerative idea which remains to them after so many convulsions; from that moment, in truth, Spain, that proud nation, would be rendered accessible to all kinds of foreign impressions, docile and pliable in bending to all opinions, and subject to the interests of her astute protectors. Let it not be forgotten that there is no other nation that conceives her plans with so much foresight, prepares them with so much prudence, executes them with so much ability and perseverance. As she has remained since her great revolutions, that is, since the end of the seventeenth century, in a settled condition, and entirely free from the convulsions undergone since that time by other European nations, she has been able to follow a regular political system, both internal and external; and her politicians have ic PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. been formed to the perfect science of government, by constantly inheriting the experience and views of their predecessors. Her statesmen well know how important it is to be prepared beforehand for every event. They deeply study what may aid or impede them in other nations. They go out of the sphere of politics: they penetrate to the heart of every nation over which they propose to extend their influence: they examine what are the conditions of its existence; what is its vital principle; what are the causes of the strength and energy of every people. During the autumn of 1805, Pitt gave a dinner in the country to some of his friends. While thus engaged, a despatch was brought to him announcing the surrender of Mack at Ulm, with 40,000 men, and the march of Napoleon on Vienna. Pitt communicated the fatal news to his friends, who cried out, "All is lost; there is no longer any resource against him." "There is one still left," replied the minister, " if I can excite a national war in Europe; and that war must begin in Spain." Yes, gentlemen," he added, " Spain will be the first country to commence the patriotic war which shall give liberty to Europe." Such was the importance attributed by this profound statesman to a national idea; he expected from it what the strength of all the governments cbuld not effect, the downfall of Napoleon, and the liberation of Europe. But it not uncommonly happens that the march of events is such, that these same national ideas, which one time were the powerful auxiliaries of ambitious cabinets, become, at another, the greatest obstacles; and then, instead of encouraging, it becomes their interest to extinguish them. As the nature of this work will not allow me to enter into the details of politics, I must content myself with appealing to the judgment of those who have observed the line of conduct pursued by England during our war and revolution, since the death of Ferdinand VII. If we consider what the interests of that powerful nation require for the future, we may conjecture the part which she will take. The means of saving a nation, by delivering it from interested protectors, and of securing her real independence, are to be found in great and generous ideas, deeply rooted in the people; in feelings engraved on their hearts by the action of time, by the influence of powerful institutions, by ancient manners and customs; in fine, in that unity of religious thought, which makes a whole people as one man. Then the past is united with the present, the present is connected with the future; then arises in the mind that enthusiasm which is the source of great deeds; then are found disinterestedness, energy, and constancy; because ideas are fixed and elevated, because hearts are great and generous. It is not impossible that during one of the convulsions which disturb our unhappy country, men may arise amongst us blind enough to attempt to introduce the Protestant religion into Spain. We have had warnings enough to alarm us; we have not forgotten events which showed plainly enough how far some would sometimes have gone, if the great majority of the nation had not restrained them by their disapprobation. We do not dread the outrages of the reign of Henry VIII.; but what we.do fear is, that advantage may be taken of a violent rupture with the Holy See, of the obstinacy and ambition of some ecclesiastics, of the pretext of establishing toleration in our country, or some other pretext, to attempt to introduce amongst us, in some shape or other, the doctrines of Protestantism. We certainly have no need of importing toleration from abroad; it already exists amongst us so fully, that no one is afraid of being disturbed on account of his religious opinions. What would be thus introduced and established in Spain, would be a new system of religion, provided with every thing necessary for gaining the upper hand; and for weakening, and, if possible, destroying Catholicity. Then would resound in our ears, with a foice constantly increasing, the fierce declamation which we have heard for PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 77 several years; the vain threatenings of a party who are delirious, because they are on the po)int of expiring. The aversion with which the nation regards the pretended Reformation, we have no doubt, would be looked upon as rebellion; the pastorals of bishops would be treated as insidious persuasions, and the fervent zeal of our priests as sedition; the unanimity of Catholics to preserve themselves from contagion would be denounced as a diabolical conspiracy, devised by intolerance and party spirit, and executed by ignorance and fanaticism. Amid the efforts of the one party, and the resistance of the other, we should see enacted, in a greater or less degree, the scenes of.times gone by; and although the spirit of moderation, which is one of the characteristics of this age, would not allow the perpetration of excesses which have stained the annals of other nations, they would not be without imitators. We must not forge that, with respect to religion in Spain, we cannot calculate on the coldness and indifference which other nations would now display on a similar occasion. With the latter, religious feelings have lost much of their force, but in Spain they are still deep, lively, and energetic; and if they were to come into open and avowed opposition to each other, the shock would be violent and general. Although we have witnessed lamentable scandals, and even fearful catastrophes in religious matters, yet, up to this time, perverse intentions have been always concealed by a mask, more or less transparent. Sometimes the attack was made against a person charged with political machinations; sometimes against certain classes of citizens, who were accused of imaginary crimes. If, at times, the revolution exceeded its bounds, it was said that it was impossible to restrain it, and thus the vexations, the insults, the outrages heaped upon all that was most sacred upon earth, were only the inevitable results, and the work of a mob that nothing could restrain. There has always been more or less of disguise; but if the dogmas of Catholicity were attacked deliberately, and with sang froid; if the most important points of discipline were trodden under foot; if the most august mysteries were turned into ridicule, and the most holy ceremonies treated with public contempt; if church were raised against church, and pulpit against pulpit, what would be the result? It is certain that minds would be very much exasperated; and if, as might be feared, alarming explosions did not ensue, at least religious controversy would assume a character so violent that we should believe ourselves transferred to the sixteenth century. It is a common thing among us for the principles which prevail in politics to be entirely opposed to those which rule in society; it may then easily happen that a religious principle, rejected by society, may find support among influential statesmen. We should then see reproduced, under more important circumstances, a phenomenon which we have witnessed for so many years, viz. governments attempting to alter the course of society by force. This is one of the principal differences between our revolution and those of other countries; it is, at the same time, a key which explains the greatest anomalies. Everywhere else revolutionary ideas took possession of society, and afterwards extended themselves to the sphere of politics; with us they first ruled in the political sphere, and afterwards strove to descend into the social sphere;'society was far from being prepared for such innovations; this was the cause of shocks so violent and so frequent. It is on account of this want of harmony that the government of Spain exercises so little influence over the people; I mean by influence, that moral ascendency which does not require to be accompanied by the idea of force. There is no doubt that this is an evil, since it tends to weaken that authority which is indispensably necessary for all societies. But on more than one occasion it has been a great benefit. It is no slight advantage that in presence of a senseless and inconstant government there is found a society full of calmness and wisdom, and that that society pursues its quiet and majestic march, while the government is carried away by rashness. We may expect. 2 78 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. much from the right instinct of the Spanish nation, from her proverbial gravity, which so many misfortunes have only augmented, and from that fact, which teaches her so well how to discern the true path to happiness, by rendering her deaf to the insidious suggestions of those who seek to lead her astray. Although for so many years, owing to a fatal combination of circumstances, and a want of harmony between the social and political order, Spain has not been able to obtain a government which understands her feelings and instincts, follows her inclinations, and promotes her prosperity, we still cherish the hope that the day will come when from her own bosom, so fertile in future life, will come forth the harmony which she seeks, and the equilibrium which she has lost. In the mean time, it is of the highest importance that all men who have a Spanish heart in their breasts, and who do not wish to see the vitals of their country torn to pieces, should unite and act in concert to preserve her from the genius of evil. Their unanimity will prevent the seeds of perpetual discord from being scattered upon our soil, will ward off this additional calamity, and will preserve from destruction those precious germs, whence may arise, with renovated vigor, our civilization, which has been so much injured by disastrous events. The soul is overwhelmed with painful apprehensions at the thought that a day may come when religious unity will be banished from among us; that unity which is identified with our habits, our customs, our manners, our laws; which guarded the cradle of our monarchy in the cavern of Covadonga, and which was the emblem on our standard during a struggle of eight centuries against the formidable crescent; tlat unity which developed and illustrated our civilization in times of the greatest difficulty; that unity which followed our terrible tercios, when they imposed silence upon Europe; which led our sailors when they discovered the new world, and guided them when they for the first time made the circuit of the globe; that unity which sustains our soldiers in their most heroic exploits, and which, at a recent period, gave the climax to their many glorious deeds in the downfall of Napoleon. You who condemn so rashly the work of ages; you who offer so many insults to the Spanish nation, and who treat as barbarism and ignorance the regulating principle of our civilization, do you know what it is you insult? Do you know what inspired the genius of Gonzalva, of Ferdinando Cortez, of the conqueror of Lepanto? Do not the shades of Garcilazo, of Herrara, of Ercilla, of Fray Luis de Leon, of Cervantes, of Lope de Vega, inspire you with any respect? Can you venture to break the tie which connects us with them, to make us the unworthy posterity of these great men? Do you wish to place an impassable barrier between their faith and ours, between their manners and ours, to make us destroy all our traditions, and to forget our most inspiring recollections? Do you wish to preserve the great and august monuments of our ancestors' piety among us only as a severe and eloquent reproach? Will you consent to see dried up the most abundant fountains to which we can have recourse to revive literature, to strengthen science, to reorganize legislation, to re-establish the spirit of nationality, to restore our glory, and replace this nation in the high position which her virtues merit, by restoring to her the peace and happiness which she seeks ~vith so much anxiety, and which her heart requires? 79 CHAPTER XIII. CATHOLICITY AND PROTESTANTISM IN RELATION TO SOCIAL PROGRESS. PRELIMINARY COUP D'(EIL. AFTER having placed Catholicity and Protestantism in contrast, in a religious point of view, in the picture which I have just drawn; after having shown the superiority of the one over the other, not only in certainty, but also in all that regards the instincts, the feelings, the ideas, the characteristics of the human mind, it seems to me proper to approach another question, certainly not less important, but much less understood, and in the examination of which we shall have to contend against strong antipathies, and to dissipate many prejudices and errors. Amid the difficulties by which the question that I am about to undertake is surrounded, I am supported by a strong hope that the interest of the subject, and its analogy with the scientific taste of the age, will invite a perusal; and that I shall thereby avoid the danger which commonly threatens those who write in favor of the Catholic religion, that of being judged without being heard. The question may be stated thus: " When we compare Catholicity and Protestantism, which do we find the most favorable to real liberty, to the real progress of nations, to the cause of civilization?" Liberty! This is one of those words which are as generally employed as they are little understood; words which, because they contain a certain vague idea, easily perceived, present the deceptive appearance of perfect clearness, while, on account of the multitude and variety of objects to which they apply, they are susceptible of a variety of meanings, and, consequently, are extremely difficult to comprehend. Who can reckon the number of applications made of the word liberty? There is always found in this word a certain radical idea, but the modifications and graduations to which the idea is subject are infinite. The air circulates with liberty; we move the soil around the plant, to enable it to grow and increase with liberty; we clean out the bed of a stream to allow it to flow with liberty; when we set free a fish in a net, or a bird in a cage, we give them their liberty; we treat a friend with freedom; we have free methods, free thoughts, free expressions, free successions, free will, free actions; a prisoner has no liberty; nor have boys, girls, or married people; a man behaves with greater freedom in a foreign country; soldiers are not free; there are men free from conscription, from contributions; we have free votes, free acknowledgments, free interpretation, free evidence; freedom of commerce, of instruction, of the press, of conscience; civil freedom, and political freedom; we have freedom just, unjust, rational, irrational, moderate, excessive, limited, licentious, seasonable, unseasonable. But I need not pursue the endless enumeration. It seemed to me necessary to dwell upon it for a moment, even at the risk of fatiguing the reader; perhaps the remembrance of all this may serve to engrave deeply on our minds the truth, that when, in conversation, in writing, in public discussions, in laws, this word is so frequently employed as applied to objects of the highest importance, it is necessary to consider maturely the number and nature of the ideas which it embraces in the particular case, the meaning that the subject needs, the modifications which the circumstances require, and the precaution demanded in the case. Whatever may be the acceptation in which the word liberty is taken, it is apparent that it always implies the absence of a cause restraining the exercise of a power. Hence it follows that, in order to fix in each case the real meaning of the word, it is indispensable to pay attention to the circumstances as well as to the nature of the power, the exercise of which is to be prevented or limited, without losing sight.of the various objects to which it applies, the conditions of its exercise, as also the character, power, and extent of the means which are 80 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. employed to restrain it. To explain this matter, let it be proposed to form a judgment on the proposition, " Man ought to enjoy liberty of thought." It is here affirmed that freedom of thought in man ought not to be restrained.; but do you speak of physical force exercised directly on thought itself? In that case the proposition is entirely vain; for as such an application of force is impossible, it is useless to say that it ought not to be employed. Do you mean to say that it is not allowable to restrain the expression of thought; that is to say, that the liberty of manifesting thought ought not to be hindered or restrained? You have, then, made a great step, you have placed the question on a different footing. Or if you do not mean to say that every man, at all times, in all places, and on all subjects, has a right to give utterance to all that comes into his head, and that'in any way he may think proper, you must then specify the things, the persons, the places, the times, the subjects, the conditions; in short, you must note a variety of circumstances, you must prohibit altogether in some cases, limit in others, bind in some, loosen in others; in fine, make so many restrictions, that you will make little progress in establishing your general principle of freedom of thought, which at first appeared so simple and so clear. Even in the sanctuary of thought, where human sight does not extend, and which is open to the eye of God alone, what means the liberty of thought? Is it owing to chance that laws are imposed on thought to which it is obliged to submit under pain of losing itself jn chaos? Can it despise the rules of sound reason? Can it refuse to listen to the counsels of good sense? Can it forget that its object is truth? Can it disregard the eternal principles of morality? Thus we find, in examining the meaning of the word liberty, even as applied to what is certainly freer than any thing else in man, viz. thought-we find such a number and variety of meanings that we are forced to make many distinctions, and necessity compels us to limit the general proposition, if we wish to avoid saying any thing in opposition to the dictates of reason and good sense, the eternal laws of morality, the interests of individuals, and the peace and preservation of society. And what may not be said of so many claims of liberty which are constantly propounded in language intentionally vague and equivocal? I avail myself of these examples to prevent a confusion of ideas; for in defending the cause of Catholicity, I have no need of pleading for oppression, or of applauding tyranny, or of approving the conduct of those who have trodden under foot men's most sacred rights. Yes, I say, sacred; for after the august religion of Jesus Christ has been preached, man is sacred in the eyes of other men on account of his origin and divine destiny, on account of the image of God which is reflected in him, and because he has been redeemed with ineffable goodness and love by the Son of the Eternal. This divine religion declares the rights of man to be sacred; for its august Founder threatens with eternal punishment not only those who kill a man, those who mutilate or rob him, but even those who offend him in words: "He who shall say to his brother, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell-fire." (Matt. v. 22.) Thus speaks our divine Lord. Our hearts swell with generous indignation, when we hear the religion of Jesus Christ reproached with a tendency towards oppression. It is true that, if you confound the spirit of real liberty with that of demagogues, you will not find it in Catholicity; but, if you avoid a monstrous misnomer, if you give to the word liberty its reasonable, just, useful, and beneficial signification, then the Catholic religion may fearlessly claim the gratitude of the human race, for she has civilized the nations who embraced her, and civilization is true liberty. It is a fact now generally acknowledged, and openly confessed, that Christianity has exercised a very important and salutary influence on the development of European civilization; if this fact has not yet had given to it the PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. I8 importance which it deserves, it is because it las not been sufficiently appreciated. With respect to civilization, a distinction is sometimes made between the influence of Christianity and that of Catholicity; its merits are lavished on the former, and stinted to the latter, by those who forget that, with respect to European civilization, Catholicity can always claim the principal share; and, for many centuries, an exclusive one; since, during a very long period, she worked alone at the great work. People have not been willing to see that, when Protestantism appeared in Europe, the work was bordering on completion; with an injustice and ingratitude which I cannot describe, they have reproached Catholicity with the spirit of barbarism, ignorance, and oppression, while they were making an ostentatious display of the rich civilization, knowledge, and liberty, for which they were principally indebted to her. If they did not wish to fathom the intimate connection between Catholicity and European civilization, if they had not the patience necessary for the long investigations into which this examination would lead them, at least it would have been proper to take a glance at the condition of countries where the Catholic religion has not exerted all her influence during centuries of trouble, and compare them with those in which she has been predominant. The East and the West, both subject to great revolutions, both professing Christianity, but in such a way that the Catholic principle was weak and vacillating in the East, while it was energetic and deeply rooted in the West; these, we say, would have afforded two very good points of comparison to estimate the value of Christianity without Catholicity, when the civilization and the existence of nations were at stake. In the West, the revolutions were multiplied and fearful; the chaos was at its height; and, nevertheless, out of chaos came light and life. Neither the barbarism of the nations who inundated those countries, and established themselves there, nor the furious assaults of Islamism, even in the days of its greatest power and enthusiasm, could succeed in destroying the germs of a rich and fertile civilization. In the East, on the contrary, all tended to old age and decay; nothing revived; and, under the blows of the power which was ineffectual against us, allwas shaken to pieces. The spiritual power of Rome, and its influence on temporal affairs, have certainly borne fruits very different from those produced, under the same circumstances, by its violent opponents. If Europe were destined one day again to undergo a general and fearful revolution, either by a universal spread of revolutionary ideas or by a violent invasion of social and proprietary rights by pauperism; if the colossus of the North, seated on its throne amid eternal snows, with knowledge in its head, and blind force in its hands, possessing at once the means of civilization, and' unceasingly turning towards the East, the South, and the West that covetous and crafty look which in histpry is the characteristic march of all invading empires; if, availing itself of a favorable moment, it were to make an attempt on the independence of Europe, then we should perhaps have a proof of the value of the Catholic principle in a great extremity; then we should feel the power of the unity which is proclaimed and supported by Catholicity, and while calling to mind'the middle ages, we should come to acknowledge one of the causes of the weakness of the East and the strength of the West. Then would be remembered a fact, which, though but of yesterday, is falling into oblivion, viz. that the nation whose heroic courage broke the power of Napoleon was proverbially Catholic; and who knows whether, in the attempts made in Russia against Catholicity, attempts which the Vicar of Jesus Christ has deplored'in such touching lan. guage-who knows whether there be not the secret influence of a presentiment, perhaps even a foresight of the necessity of weakening that sublime power, which has been in all ages, when the cause of humanity was in question, the centre of great attempts? But let us return. 11 8i2 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. It cannot be denied that, since the sixteenth century, European civilization has shown life and brilliancy; but it is a mistake to attribute this phenomenon to Protestantism. In order to examine the extent and influence of a fact, we ought not to be content with the events which have followed it; it is also necessary to consider whether these events were already prepared; whether they are any thing more than the necessary result of anterior facts; and we must take care not to reason in a way which is justly declared to be sophistical by logicians, post hoc, ergo propter hoc: after that, therefore on account of it. Without Protestantism, and before it, European civilization was already very much advanced, thanks to the labors and influence of the Catholic religion; the greatness and splendor which it subsequently displayed were not owing to it, but arose in spite of it. Erroneous ideas on this matter have arisen from the fact, that Christianity has not been deeply studied; and that, without entering into a serious examination of Church history, men have too often contented themselves with taking a superficial view of the principles of brotherhood which she has so much recommended. In order fully to understand an institution, it is not enough to remain satisfied with its leading ideas.; it is necessary to follow all its steps, see how it realizes its ideas, and how it triumphs over the obstacles that oppose it. We shall never form a complete idea of an* historical fact, unless we carefully study its history. Now the study of Church history in its relations with civilization, is still incomplete. It is not that ecclesiastical history has not been profoundly studied; but it may be said that since the spirit of social analysis has been developed, that history has not yet been made the subject of those admirable labors which have thrown so much light upon it in a critical and dogmatical point of view. Another impediment to the complete comprehension of this matter is, that an exaggerated importance is given to the intentions of men, and the great march of events is too much neglected. The greatness of events is measured, and their nature judged of, by the immediate means which produces them, and the objects of the men whose actions are treated of; this is a very important error. The eye ought to range over a wider field; we ought to observe the successive development of ideas, the influence which they have exercised on events, the institutions which have sprung from them; but it is necessary to see all these things as they are in themselves, that is, on a large scale, without stopping to consider particular and isolated facts. It is an important truth, which ought to be deeply engraven on the mind, that when one of those great facts which change the lot of a considerable portion of the human race is developed, it is rarely understood by those who take part in it, and figure as the. principal actors. The march of humanity is a grand drama; the parts are played by persons who pass by and disappear: man is very little; God alone is great. Neither the actors who figured on the scene in the ancient empires of the East, nor Alexander invading Asia and reducing numberless nations into servitude, nor.the Romans subjugating the world, nor the barbarians overturning the empire and breaking it in pieces, nor the Mussulmen ruling Asia and Africa and menacing the independence of Europe; knew, or could know, that they were the instruments in the great designs whereof we admire the execution. I mean to show from this, that when we have to do with Christian civilization, when we collect and analyze the facts which distinguish its march, it is not necessary, or even often proper, to suppose that the men who have contributed to it in the most remarkable manner understood, to the full extent, the results of their own efforts. It is glory enough for a man to be pointed out as the chosen instrument of Providence, without the necessity of attributing to him great ability or lofty ambition. It is enough to observe that a ray of light has descended from heaven and illumined his brow; it is of little importance PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 83 whether he foresaw that this ray, by reflection, was destined to shed a brilliant light on future generations. Little men are commonly smaller than they think themselves, but great men are often greater than they imagine; if they do not know all their grandeur, it is because they are ignorant that they are the instruments of the high designs of Providence. Another observation which we ought always to have present in the study of these great events is, that we should not expect to find there a system, the connection and harmony of which are apparent at the first coup d'oeil. We must expect to see some irregularities and objects of an unpleasant aspect; it is necessary to guard against the childish impatience of anticipating the time; it is indispensable to abandon that desire which we always have, in a greater or less degree, and which always urges us to seek every thing in conformity with our own ideas, and to see every thing advance in the way most pleasing to us. Do you not see nature herself so varied, so rich, so grand, lavish her treasures in disorder, hide her inestimable precious stones and her most valuable veins of metal.in masses of earth? See how she presents huge chains of mountains, inaccessible rocks, and fearful precipices, in contrast with her wide and smiling plains. Do you not observe this apparent disorder, this prodigality, in the midst of which numberless agents work, in secret concert, to produce the admirable whole which enchants our eyes and ravishes the lover of nature? So with society; the facts are dispersed, scattered here and there, frequently offering no appearance of order or concert; events succeed each other, act on each other, without the design being discovered; men unite, separate, co-operate, and contend, and nevertheless time, that indispensable agent in the production of great works, goes on, and all is accomplished according to the destinies marked out in the secrets of the Eternal. This is the march of humanity; this is the rule for the philosophic study of history; this is the way to comprehend the influence of those productive ideas, of those powerful institutions, which from time to time appear among men to change the face of the earth. When in a study of this kind we discover acting at the bottom of things a productive idea, a powerful institution, the mind, far from being frightened at meeting with some irregularities, is inspired, on the contrary, with fresh courage; for it is a sure sign that the idea is full of truth, that the institution is fraught with life, when we see them pass through the chaos of ages, and come safe out of the frightful ordeals. Of what importance is it that certain men were not influenced by the idea, that they did not answer the object of the institution, if the latter has survived its revolutions, and the former has not been swallowed up. in the stormy sea of the passions? To mention the weaknesses, the miseries, the faults, the crimes of men, is to make the most eloquent apology for the idea and the institution. In viewing men in this way, we do not take them out of their proper places, and we do not require from them more than is reasonable. We see them enclosed in the deep bed of the great torrent of events, and we do not attribute to their intellects, or to their will, any thing that exceeds the sphere appointed for them; we do not, however, fail to appreciate in a proper manner the nature and-the greatness of the works in which they take part, but we avoid giving to them an exaggerated importance, by honoring them with eulogiums which they do not deserve, or reproaching them unjustly. Times and circumstances are not monstrously confounded; the observer sees with calmness and sang froid the events which pass before his eyes; he speaks not of the empire of Charlemagne as ie would of that of Napoleon, and is not hurried into bitter invectives against Gregory VII. because he did not adopt the same line of political conduct as Gregory XVI. Observe that I do not ask from the philosophical historian an impassive indifference to good and evil, to justice and injustice; I do not claim indulgence fir &84 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. vice, nor would I refuse to virtue its eulogy. I have no sympathy with tliat school of historic fatalism, which would bring back to the world the destiny of the ancients; a school which, if it acquired influence, would corrupt the best part of history, and stifle the most generous emotions. I see in the march of society a plan, a harmony, but not a blind necessity; I do not believe that events are mingled up together indiscriminately in the dark urn of destiny, nor that fatalism holds the world enclosed in an iron circle. But I see a wonderful chain stretching over the course of centuries, a chain which does not fetter the movements of individuals or of nations, and which accommodates itself to the ebb and flow which are required by the nature of things; at its touch great thoughts arise in the minds of men: this golden chain is suspended by the hand of the Eternal, it is the work of infinite intelligence and ineffable love. CHAPTER XIV. DID THERE EXIST AT THE EPOCH WHEN CHRISTIANITY APPEARED ANY OTHER PRINCIPLE OF REGENERATION? IN what condition did Christianity find the world? This is a question which ought to fix all our attention, if we wish to appreciate correctly the blessings conferred by that divine religion on individuals and on society, if we are desirous of knowing the real character of Christian civilization. Certainly at the time when Christianity appeared, society presented a dark picture. Covered with fine appearances, but infected to the heart with a mortal malady, it presented an image of the most repugnant corruption, veiled by a brilliant garb of ostentation and opulence. Morality was without reality, manners without modesty, the passions without restraint, laws without authority, and religion without God. Ideas were at the mercy of prejudices, of religious fanaticism, and philosophical subtilties. Man was a profound mystery to himself; he did not know how to estimate his own dignity, for he reduced it to the level of brutes; and when he attempted to exaggerate its importance, he did not know how to confine it within the limits marked out by reason and nature: and it is well worthy of observation, that while a great part of the human race groaned in the most abject servitude, heroes, and even the most abominable monsters, were elevated to the rank of gods. Such elements must, sooner or later, have produced social dissolution. Even if the violent irruption of the barbarians had not taken place, society must have been overturned sooner or later, for it did not possess a fertile idea; a consoling thought, or a beam of hope, to preserve it from ruin. Idolatry had. lost its strength; it was an expedient exhausted by time and by the gross abuse which the passions had made of it. Its fragile tissue once exposed to the dissolving influence of philosophical observation, idolatry was entirely disgraced; and if the rooted force of habit still exercised a mechanical influence on the minds of men, that influence was neither capable of re-establishing harmony in society, nor of producing that fiery enthusiasm which inspires great actions-enthusiasm which in virgin hearts may be excited by superstition the most irrational and absurd. To judge of them by the relaxation of morals, by the enervated weakness of character, by the effeminate luxury, by the complete abandonment to the most repulsive amusements and the most shameful pleasures, it is clear that religious ideas no longer possessed the majesty of the heroic age; no longer efficacious, they only exerted on men's minds a feeble influence, while they served in a lamentable manner as instruments of dissolution. Now it,was impossible for it to be otherwise: nations who had obtained the high degree of cultivation of the Greeks and Romans; PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 85 nations who had heard their great sages dispute on the grand questions of divinity and man, could not continue in the state of simplicity which was necessary to believe with good faith the intolerable absurdities of which Paganism is full; and whatever may have been the disposition of mind among the ignorant portion of the people, assuredly those who were raised above the colnmon standard did not believe them-those who listened to philosophers as enlightened as Cicero, and who daily enjoyed the malicious railleries of their satirical poets. If religion was impotent, was there not another means, viz. knowledge? Before we examine what was to be hoped from this, it is necessary to observe, that knowledge never founded a society, nor was it ever able to restore one that had lost its balance. In looking over the history of ancient times, we find at the head of some nations eminent men who, thanks to the magic influence which they exercised over others, dictated laws, corrected abuses, rectified ideas, reformed morals, and established a government on wise principles; thus securing, in a more or less satisfactory manner, the happiness and prosperity of those who were confided to their care. But we should be much -mistaken if we imagined that these men proceeded according to what we call scientific combinations. Generally simple and rude, they acted according to the impulses of their generous hearts, only guided by the wisdom and good sense of the father of a family in the management of his domestic affairs: never did these men adopt for their rule the wretched subtilties which we call theories, the crude mass of ideas which we disguise under the pompous name of science. Were the most distinguished days of Greece those of Plato and Aristotle? The proud Romans, who conquered the world, certainly had not the extent and variety of knowledge of the Augustan age; and. yet who would exchange the times or the men? Modern times also can show important evidences of the sterility of science in creating social institutions; which is the more evident as the practical effects of the natural sciences are the more visible. It seems that in the latter sciences man has a power which he has not in the former; although, when the matter is fully examined, the difference does not appear so great as at the first view. Let us briefly compare their respective results. When man seeks to apply the knowledge which he has acquired of the great laws of nature, he finds himself compelled to pay respect to her; as, whatever might be his wishes, his weak arm could not cause any great bouleversemert, he is obliged to make his attempts limited in extent, and the desire of success induces him to act in conformity with the laws which govern the bodies he has to do with. It is quite otherwise with the application made of the social sciences. There man is able to act directly and immediately on society itself, on its eternal foundations; he does not consider himself necessarily bound to make his attempts on a small scale, or to respect the eternal laws of society; he is able, on the contrary, to imagine those laws as he pleases, indulge in as many subtilties as he thinks proper, and bring about disasters which humanity laments. Let us remember the extravagances which have found favor, with respect to nature, in the schools of philosophy, ancient and modern, and we shall see what would have become of the admirable machine of the universe, if philosophers had had full power over it. Descartes said, " Give me matter and motion, and I will form a world!" He could not derange an atom in the system of the universe. Rousseau, in his turn, dreamed of placing society on a new basis, and he upset the social state. It must not be forgotten that science, properly so called, has little power in the organization of society: this ought to be remembered in modern times, when it boasts so much of its pretended fertility. It attributes to its own labors what is the fruit of the lapse of ages, of the instinctive law of nations, and sometimes of the inspirations of genius; now neither this instinct of nations nor genius at all resembles science. H 86 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. But without pushing any further these general considerations, which are, nevertheless, very useful in leading us to a knowledge of man, what could be hoped from the false light of science which was preserved in the ruins of the ancient schools at the time we are speaking of? However limited the know. ledge of the ancient philosophers, even the most distinguished, may have been on these subjects, we must allow that the names of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle command some degree of respect, and that amid their errors and mistakes they give us thoughts which are really worthy of their lofty genius. But when Christianity appeared, the germs of knowledge planted by them had been destroyed; dreams had taken the place of high and fruitful thoughts, the love of disputation had replaced that of wisdom, sophistry and subtilties had been substituted for mature judgment and severe reasoning. The ancient schools had been upset, others as sterile as they were strange had been formed out of their ruins; on all sides there appeared a swarm of sophists like the impure insects which announce the corruption of a dead body. The Church has preserved for us a very valuable means of judging of the science of that time, in the history of the early heresies. Without speaking of what therein deserves all our indignation, as, for example, their profound immorality, can we find any thing more empty, absurd, or pitiable? (14) The Roman legislation, so praiseworthy for its justice and equity, its wisdom and prudence, and much as it deserves to be regarded as one of the most precious ornaments of ancient civilization, was yet incapable of preventing the dissolution with which society was threatened. Never did it owe its safety to jurisconsults; so great a work is beyond the sphere of action of jurisprudence. Let us suppose the laws as perfect as possible, jurisprudence carried to the highest point, jurisconsults animated by the purest.feelings and guided by the most honest intentions, what would all this avail if the heart of society is corrupt, if moral principles have lost their force, if manners are in continual opposition with laws? Let us consider the picture of Roman manners such as their own historians have painted them; we shall not find even a reflection of the equity, justice, and good sense which made the Roman laws deserve the glorious name of written reason. To give a proof of impartiality, I purposely omit the blemishes from which the Roman law was certainly not exempt, for I do not desire to be accused of wishing to lower every thing which is not the work of Christianity. Yet I must not pass over in silence the important fact, that it isby no means true that Christianity had no share in perfecting the jurisprudence-of Rome; I do not mean merely during the period of the Christian emnperors, which does not admit of a doubt, but even at a prior period. It is certain that some time before the coming of Jesus Christ the number of the Roman laws was very considerable, and that their study and arrangement already occupied the attention of many of the most illustrious men. We know from Suetonius (In Caesar. c. 44) that Julius Caesar had undertaken the extremely useful task of condensing into a small number of books those which were the most select and necessary among the immense collection'of laws; a similar idea occurred to Cicero, who wrote a book on the methodical digest of the civil law (de jure civili.in arte redigendo), as Aulus Gellius attests. (Noct. Att. lib. i. c. 22.) According to Tacitus, this work also occupied the attention of the Emperor Augustus. Certainly these projects show that legislation was not in its infancy; but it is not the less true that the Roman law, as we possess it, is in great part the product of later ages. Many of the most famous jurists, whose opinions form a considerable part of the law, lived long after the coming of Jesus Christ. As to the constitutions of the emperors, their very names remind us of the time when they were digested. These facts being established, I shall observe that it does not follow that b. PGOTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 87 cause the emperors and jurists were pagans, the Christian ideas had no influence on their works. The number of Christians was immense in all places; the cruelty alone with which they had been persecuted, the heroic courage which they had displayed in the face of torments and death, must have drawn upon them the attention of the whole world; and it is impossible that this should not have excited, among men of reflection, curiosity enough to examine what this new religion taught its proselytes. The reading of the apologies for Christianity already written in the first ages with so much force of reasoning and eloquence, the works of various kinds published by the early Fathers, the homilies of Bishops to their people, contain so much wisdom, breathe such a love for truth and justice, and proclaim so loudly the eternal principles of morality, that it was impossible for their influence not to be felt even by those who condemned the religion of Christ. When doctrines having for their object the greatest questions which affect man are spread everywhere, propagated with fervent zeal, received with love by a considerable number of disciples, and maintained by the talent and knowledge of illustrious men, these doctrines make a profound impression in all directions, and affect even those who warmly combat them. Their influence in this case is imperceptible, but it is not the less true and real. They act like the exhalations which impregnate the atmosphere; with the air we inhale sometimes death, and sometimes a salutary odor which purifies and strengthens us. Such must necessarily have been the case with a doctrine which was preached in so extraordinary a manner, propagated with so much rapidity, and the truth of which, sealed by torrents of blood, was defended by writers such as Justin, Clement of Alexandria, Irenseus, and Tertullian. The profound wisdom, the ravishing beauty of these doctrines, explained by the Christian doctors, must have, called attention to the sources whence they flowed; it was natural that curiosity thus excited should put the holy Scriptures into the hands of many philosophers and jurists. Would it be strange if Epictetus had imbibed some of the doctrines of the Sermon on the Mount, and if the oracles of jurisprudence had imperceptibly received the inspiration of a religion whose power, spreading in a wonderful manner, took possession of all ranks of society? Burning zeal for truth and justice, the spirit of brotherhood, grand ideas of the dignity of man, the continued themes of Christian instruction, could not remain confined among the children of the Church. More or less rapidly they penetrated all classes; and when, by the conversion of Constantine, they acquired political influence and imperial authority, it was only the repetition of an ordinary phenomenon; when a system has become very powerful in the social order, it ends by exerting an empire, or at least an influence, in the political. I leave these observations to the judgment of thinking men with perfect confidence; I am sure that if they do not adopt them, at least they will not consider them unworthy of reflection. We live at a time fruitful in great events, and when important revolutions have taken place; therefore we are better able to understand the immense effects of indirect and slow influences, the powerful ascendency of ideas, and the irresistible force with which doctrines work their way. To this want of vital principles capable of regenerating society, to all those elements of dissolution which society contained within itself, was joined another evil of no slight importance,-the vice of its political organization. The world being under the yoke of Rome, hundreds of nations differing in manners and customs were heaped together in confusion, like spoils on the field of battle, and constrained to form a factitious body, like trophies placed upon a spear. The unity of the government being violent, could not be advantageous; and moreover, as it was despotic, from the emperor down to the lowest pro-consul, it will be seen that it could not produce any other result than the debasement and $8 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLIC.TY. degradation of nations, and that it was impossible for them to display that ele. vation and energy of character which are the precious fruit of a feeling of selfdignity and love for national independence. If Rome had preserved her ancient manners, if she had retained in her bosom warriors as celebrated for the simplicity and austerity of their lives as for the renown of their victories, some of the qualities of the conquerors might have been communicated to the conquered, as a young and robust heart reanimates with its vigor a body attenuated by disease. Unfortunately such was not the case. The Fabiuses, the Camilluses, the Scipios, would not have acknowledged their unworthy posterity; Rome, the mistress of the world, like a slave, was trodden under the feet of monsters who mounted to the throne by perjury and violence, stained their sceptres with corruption and cruelty, and fell by the hands of assassins. The authority of the Senate and people had disappeared; only vain imitations of them were left, vestigia morientis libertatis, as Tacitus calls them, vestiges of expiring liberty; and this royal people, who formerly disposed of kingdoms, consulships, legions, and all, then thought only of two things, food and games, "Qui dabat olim Imperium, fasces, legiones, omnia, nunc se Continet, atque duas tantum res anxius optat, Panem et Circenses."-JUVENAL, Satire x. At length, in the plenitude of time Christianity appeared; ind without announcing any change in political. forms, without intermeddling in the temporal and earthly, it brought to mankind a twofold salvation, by calling them to the path of eternal felicity, but at the same time bountifully supplying them with the only means of preservation from social dissolution, the germ of a regeneration slow and pacific, but grand, immense, and lasting, and secure from the revolutions of ages; and this preservative against social dissolution, this germ of invaluable improvements, was a pure and lofty doctrine, diffused among all mankind, without exception of age, sex, and condition, as the rain which falls like a mild dew on an arid and thirsty soil. No religion has ever equalled Christianity in knowledge of the hidden means of influencing man; none has ever, when doing so, paid so high a compliment to his dignity; and Christianity has always adopted the principle, that the first step in gaining possession of the whole man is that of gaining his mind; and that it is necessary, in order either to destroy evil or to effect good, to adopt intellectual means: thereby it has given a mortal blow to the systems of violence which prevailed before its existence; it has proclaimed the wholesome truth, that in influencing men, the weakest and most unworthy method is force; a fruitful and beneficial truth, which opened to humanity a new and happy future. Only since the Christian era do we find the lessons of the sublimest philosophy taught to all classes of the people, at all times and in all places. The loftiest truths relating to God and man, the rules of the purest morality, are not communicated to a chosen number of disciples in hidden and mysterious instructions; the philosophy of Christianity has been bolder; it has ventured to reveal to man the whole naked truth, and that in public, with a loud voice, and that generous boldness which is the inseparable companion of the truth. "That which I tell you in the dark, speak ye in the light; and that which you hear in the ear, preach ye upon the housetop." (Matt. x. 27.) As soon as Christianity and Paganism met face to face, the superiority of the former was rendered palpable, not only by its doctrines themselves, but by the manner in which it propagated them. It might easily be imagined that a religion so wise and pure in its teachings, and which, in propagating them, addressed itself directly to the mind and heart, must quickly drive from its usurped dominion the religion of imposture and falsehood. And, indeed, what did Paganism do for the good of man? What moral truths did it teach? How did it check PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 89 the corruption of manners? "As to morals," says St. Augustine, "why have not the gods chosen to take care of those of their adorers, and prevent their irregularities? As to the true God, it is with justice that He has neglected those who did not serve Him. But whence comes it that those gods, the prohibition of whose worship is complained of by ungrateful men, have not established laws to lead their adorers to virtue? Was it not reasonable that, as men undertook their mysteries and sacrifices, the gods, on their side, should undertake to regulate the manners and actions of men? It is replied, that no one is wicked but because he wishes to be so. Who doubts this? but the gods ought not on that account to conceal from their worshippers precepts that might serve to anake them practise virtue. They were, on the contrary, under the obligation of publishing those precepts aloud, of admonishing and rebuking sinners by their prophets; of publicly threatening punishment to those who did evil, and promising rewards to those who did well. Was there ever heard, in the temples of the gods, a loud and generous voice teaching any thing of the kind?" (De Civit. lib. ii. c. 4.) The holy doctor afterwards paints a dark picture of the infamies and abominations which were committed in the spectacles and sacred games celebrated in honor of the gods-games and shows at which he had himself assisted in his youth; he continues thus: Thence it comes that these divinities have taken no care to regulate the morals of the cities and nations who adore them, or to avert by their threats those dreadful evils which injure not only fields and vineyards, houses and properties, or the body which is subject to the mind, but the mind itself, the directress of the body, which was drenched with their iniquities. Or if it be pretended that they did make such menaces, let them be shown and proved to us. But let there not be alleged a few secret words whispered in the ears of a small number of persons, and which, with a great deal of mystery, were to teach virtue. It is necessary to point out, to name the places consecrated to the assemblies-not those in which were celebrated games with lascivious words and gestures; not those feasts called fuites, and which were solemnized with the most unbridled license; but the assemblies where the people were instructed in the precepts of the gods for the repression of avarice, moderating ambition, restraining immodesty; those where these unfortunate beings learn what Perseus desires them to know, when he says, in severe language,' Learn, O unhappy mortals, the reason of things, what we are, why we come into the world, what we ought to do, how miserable is the term of our career, what bounds we ought to prescribe to ourselves in the pursuit of riches, what use we ought to make of them, what we owe to our neighbor, in fine, the obligations we owe to the rank we occupy among men.' Let them tell us in what places they have been accustomed to instruct the people in these things by order of the gods; let them show us these places, as we show them churches built for this purpose wherever the Christian religion has been established." (De Civit. lib; ii. c. 6.) This divine religion was too deeply acquainted with the heart of man ever to forget the weakness and inconstancy which characterize it; and hence it has ever been her invariable rule of conduct unceasingly to inculcate to him, with untiring patience, the salutary truths on which his temporal well-being and eternal happiness depend. Man easily forgets moral truths when he is not constantly reminded of them; or if they remain in his mind, they are there like sterile seeds, and do not fertilize his heart. It is good and highly salutary for parents constantly to communicate this instruction to their children, and that it should be made the principal object of private education; but it is necessary, moreover, that there should be a public ministry, never losing sight of it, diffusing it among all classes and ages, repairing the negligences of families, and reviving recollections and im. pressions which the passions and time constantly efface. This system of constant preaching and instruction, practised at all times and 12 H2 90 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. in all places by the Catholic Church, is so important for the enlightenment and morality of nations, that it must be looked upon as a great good, that the first Protestants, in spite of their desire to destroy all the practices of the Church, have nevertheless preserved that of preaching. We need not be insensible on this account to the evils produced at certain times by the declamation of some factious or fanatical ministers; but as unity had been broken, as the people had been precipitated into the perilous paths of schism, we say that it must have been extremely useful for the preservation of the most important notions with respect to God and man and the fundamental maxims of morality, that such truths should be frequently explained to the people by men who had long studied them in the sacred Scriptures. No doubt the mortal blow given to the,hierarchy by the Protestant system, and the degradation of the priesthood which was the consequence, have deprived its preachers of the sacred characteristics of the Holy Spirit; no doubt it.is a great obstacle to the efficacy of their preachers, that they cannot present themselves as the anointed of the Lord, and that they are only, as an able writer has said, men clothed in black, who mount the pulpit every Sunday to speak reasonable things; but at least the people continue to hear some fragments of the excellent moral discourses contained in the sacred Scriptures, they have often before their eyes the edifying examples spread over the Old and New Testament, and, what is still more precious, they are reminded frequently of the events in the life of Jesus Christ,-of that admirable life, the model of all perfection, which, even when considered in a human point of view, is acknowledged by all to be the purest sanctity par excellence, the noblest code of morality that was ever seen, the realization of the finest beau ideal that philosophy in its loftiest thoughts has ever conceived under human form, and which poetry has ever imagined in its most brilliant dreams. This we say is useful and highly salutary; for it will always be salutary for nations to be nourished with the wholesome food of moral truths, and to be excited to virtue by such sublime examples. CHAPTER XV. DIFFICULTIES WHICH CHRISTIANITY HAD TO OVERCOME IN THE VORK OF SOCIAL REGENERATION.-OF SLAVERY. —COULD IT BE DESTROYED WITH MORE PROMPTNESS THAN IT WAS BY CHRISTIANITY? ALTHOUGH the Church attached the greatest importance to the propagation of truth, although she was convinced that to destroy the shapeless mass of immorality and degradation that met her sight, her first care should be to expose error to the dissolving fire of true doctrines, she did not confine herself to this; but, descending to real life, and following a system full of wisdom and prudence, she acted in such a manner as to enable humanity to taste the precious fruit which the doctrines of Jesus Christ produce even in temporal things. The Church was not only a great and fruitful school; she was also a regenerative association; she did not diffuse her general doctrines by throwing them abroad at hazard, merely hoping that they would fructify with time; she developed them in all their relations, applied them to all subjects, inoculated laws and mann'ers with them, and realized them in institutions which afforded silent but eloquent instructions to future generations. Nowhere was the dignity of man acknowledged, slavery reigned everywhere; degraded woman was dishonored by the corruption of manners, and debased by the tyranny of man. The feelings of humanity were trodden under foot, infants were abandoned, the sick and aged were neglected, barbarity and cruelty were carried to the highest pitch of atro. city in the prevailing laws of war; in fine, on the summit of the social edifice PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 91 was seen an odious tyranny, sustained by military force, and looking down with an eye of contempt on.the unfortunate nations that lay in fetters at its feet. In such a state of things it certainly was no slight task to remove error, to reform and improve manners, abolish slavery, correct the vices of legislation, impose a check on power, and make it harmonize with the public interest, give new life to individuals, and reorganize family and society; and yet nothing less than this was done by the Church. Let us begin with slavery. This is a matter which is the more to be fathomed, as it is a question eminently calculated to excite our curiosity and affect our hearts. What abolished slavery amohg Christian nations? Was it Christianity? Was it Christianity alone,.by its lofty ideas on human dignity, by its maxims and its spirit of fraternity and charity, and also by its prudent, gentle, and beneficent conduct? I trust I shall prove that it was. No one now ventures to doubt that the Church exercised a powerful influence on the abolition of slavery; this is a truth too clear and evident to be questioned. M. Guizot acknowledges the successful efforts with which the Church labored to improve the social condition. He says: "No one doubts that she struggled obstinately against the great vices of the social state; for example, against slavery." But, in the next line, and as if he were reluctant to establish without any restriction a fact which must necessarily excite in favor of the Catholic Church the sympathies of all humanity, he adds: " It has been often repeated that the abolition of slavery in the modern world was entirely due to Christianity. I believe that this is saying too much; slavery existed for a long time in the bosom of Christian society without exciting astonishment or much opposition." M. Guizot is much mistaken if he expects to prove that the abolition of slavery was not due exclusively to Christianity, by the mere representation that slavery existed for a long time amid Christian society. To proceed logically, he must first see whether the sudden abolition of it was possible, if the spirit of peace and order which animates the Church could allow her rashly to enter on an enterprise which, without gaining the de. sired object, might have convulsed the world. The number of slaves was immense; slavery was deeply rooted in laws, manners, ideas, and interests, individual and social; a fatal system, no doubt, but the eradication of which all at once it would have been rash to attempt, as its roots had penetrated deeply and spread widely in the bowels of the land. In a census of Athens there were reckoned 20,000 citizens and 40,000 slaves; in the Peloponnesian war no less than 20,000 passed over to the enemy. This we learn from Thucydides. The same author tells us, that at Chio the number of slaves was very considerable, and that their defection, when they passed over to the Athenians, reduced their masters to great extremities. In general, the number of slaves was so very great everywhere that the public safety was often compromised thereby. Therefore it was necessary to take precautions to prevent their acting in concert. "It is necessary," says Plato (Dial. 6, de Leg.), " that slaves should not be of the same country, and that they should differ as much as possible in manners and desires; for experience has many times shown, in the frequent defections which have been witnessed, among the Messenians, and in other cities that had a great number of slaves of the same language, that great evils commonly result from it." Aristotle in his Government (b. i. c. 5) gives various rules as to the manner in which slaves ought to be treated; it is remarkable that he is of the same opinion as Plato, for he says: "That there should not be many slaves of the same country." He tells us in his Politics (b. ii. c. 7), " That the Thessalians were reduced to great embarrassments on account of the number of their Penestes, a sort of slaves; the same thing hap. pened to the Spartans on account of the Helotes. The Penestes have often rebelled in Thessaly; and the Spartans, during their reverses, have been me. naced by the plots of the Helotes." This was a difficulty which required the 92 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. serious attention of politicians. They did not know how to prevent the inconveniences induced by this immense multitude of slaves. Aristotle laments the difficulty there was in finding the best way of treating them; and we see that it was the subject of grave cares; I will transcribe his own words: "In truth," he says, " the manner in which this class of men ought to be treated is a thing difficult and full of embarrassment; for if they are treated mildly, they become insolent, and wish to become equal to their masters; if th,y are treated harshly, they conceive hatred, and conspire." At Rome, the multitude of slaves was such that when, at a certain period, it was proposed to give thenm a distinctive dress, the Senate opposed the measure, fearing that if they knew their own numbers the public safety would be endangered; and certainly this precaution was not vain, for already, a long time before, the slaves had caused great commotions in Italy. Plato, in support of the advice which I have just quoted, states, " That the slaves had frequently devastated Italy with piracy and robbery." In more recent times Spartacus, at the head of an army of slaves, was the terror of that country for some time, and engaged the best generals of Rome. The number of slaves had reached such an excess, that many masters reckoned them by hundreds. When the Prefect of Rome, Pedanius Secundus, was assassinated, four hundred slaves who belonged to him were put to death. (Tac. Ann. b. xiv.) Pudentila, the wife of Apulcius, had so many that she gave four hundred to her son. They became a matter of pomp, and the Romans vied with each other in their number. When asked this question, quod pascit servos, how many slaves does he keep, according to the expression of Juvenal (Sat. 3, v. 140), they wished to be able to show a great number. The thing had reached such a pass that, according to Pliny, the cortege of a family resembled an army. It was not only in Greece and Italy that this abundance of slaves was found; at Tyre they arose against their masters, and, by their immense numbers, they were able to massacre them all. If we turn our eyes towards barbarous nations, without speaking of some the best known, we learn from Herodotus that the Scythians, on their return from Media, found their slaves in rebellion, and were compelled to abandon their country to them. Caesar in his Commentaries (de Bello Gall. lib. vi.) bears witness to the multitude of slaves in Gaul. As their number was everywhere so considerable, it is clear that it was quite impossible to preach freedom to them without setting the world on fire. Unhappily we have, in modern times, the means of forming a comparison which, although on an infinitely smaller scale, will answer our purpose. In a colony where black slaves abound, who would venture to set them at liberty all at once? Now how much are the difficulties increased, what colossal dimensions does not the danger assume, when you have to do, not with a colony, but with the world? Their intellectual and moral condition rendered them incapable of turning such an advantage to their own benefit and that of society; in their debasement, urged on by the hatred and the desire of vengeance which ill-treatment had excited in their minds, they would have repeated, on a large scale, the bloody scenes with which they had already, in former times, stained the pages of history; and what would then have happened? Society, thus endang( red, would have been put on its guard against principles favoring liberty; henceforth it would have regarded them with prejudice and suspicion, and the chains of servitude, instead of being loosened, would have been the more firmly riveted. Out of this immense mass of rude, savage men, set at liberty without preparation, it was impossible for social organization to arise; for social organization is not the creation of a moment, especially with such elements as these; and in this case, since it would have been necessary to choose between slavery and the annihilation of social order, the instinct of preservation, which animates society as well as all beings, would undoubtedly have brought about the continuation of slavery PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 93 where it still existed, and its re-establishment where it had been destroyed. Those who complain that Christianity did not accomplish the work of abolishing slavery with sufficient promptitude, should remember that, even supposing a sudden or very rapid emancipation possible, and to say nothing of the bloody revolutions which would necessarily have been the result, the mere force of circumstances, by the insurmountable difficulties which it would have raised, would have rendered such a measure absolutely useless. Let us lay aside all social and political considerations, and apply ourselves to the economical question. First, it was necessary to change all the relations of property. The slaves played a principal part therein; they cultivated the land, and worked as mechanics; in a word, among them was distributed all that is called labor; and this distribution being made on the supposition of slavery, to take away this would have made a disruption, the ultimate. consequences of which could not be estimated. I will suppose that violent spoliations had taken place, that a repartition or equalization of property had been attempted, that lands had been distributed to the emancipated, and that the richest proprietors had been compelled to hold the pickaxe and the plough; I will suppose all these absurdities and mad dreams to be realized, and I say that this would have been no remedy; for we must not forget that the production of the means of subsistence must be in proportion to the wants of those they are intended to support, and that this proportion would have been destroyed by the abolition of slavery. The production was regulated, not exactly according to the number of the individuals who then existed, but on the supposition that the majority were slaves; now we know that the wants of a freeman are greater than those of a slave. If at the present time, after eighteen cepturies, when ideas have been corrected, manners softened, laws ameliorated; when nations and governments have been taught by experience; when so many public establishments for the relief of indigence have been founded; when so many systems have been tried for the division of labor; when riches are distributed in a more equitable manner; if it is still so difficult to prevent a great number of men from becoming the victims of dreadful misery, if that is the terrible evil, which, like a fatal nightmare, torments society, and threatens its future, what would have been the effect of a universal emancipation, at the beginning of Christianity, at a time when slaves were not considered by the law as persons, but as things; when their conjugal union was not looked upon as a marriage; when their children were property, and subject to the same rules as the progeny of animals; when, in fine, the unhappy slave was ill-treated, tormented, sold, or put to death, according to the caprices of his master? Is it not evident that the cure of such evils was the work of ages? Do not humanity and political and social economy unanimously tell us this? If mad attempts had been made, the slaves themselves would have been the first to protest against them; they would have adhered to a servitude which at least secured to them food and shelter; they would have rejected a liberty which was inconsistent even with their existence. Such is the order of nature: man, above all, requires wherewith to live; and the means of subsistence being wanting, liberty itself would cease to please him. It is not necessary to allude to the individual examples of this, which we have in abundance; entire nations have given signal proofs of this truth. When misery is excessive, it is difficult for it not to bring with it degradation, stifle the most generous sentiments, and take away the magic of the words independence and liberty. "The common people," says Caesar, speaking of the Gauls (lib. vi. de Bello Gall.), "are almost on a level with slaves.; of themselves they veAture nothing; their voice is of no avail. T.here are many of that class, who, loaded with debts and tributes, or oppressed by the powerful, give themselves up into servitude to the nobles, who exercise over those who have thus delivered themselves up the same rights as over slaves." Examples of the 9I4 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. same kind are not wanting in modern times; we know that in China there is a great number of slaves whose servitude is owing entirely to the incapacity of themselves.or their fathers to provide for their own subsistence. These observations, which are- supported by facts that no one can deny, evidently show that Christianity has displayed profound wisdom in proceeding with so much caution in the abolition of slavery. It did all that was possible in favor of human liberty; if it did not advance more rapidly in the work, it was because it could not do so without compromitting the undertaking-without creating serious obstacles to the desired emancipation. Sqch is the result'at which we arrive when we have thoroughly examined the charges made against some proceedings of the Church. We look into them by the light of reason, we compare them with the facts, and in the end we are convinced that the conduct blamed is perfectly in accordance with the dictates of the highest wisdom and the counsels of the soundest prudence. What, then, does M. Guizot mean, when, after having allowed that Christianity labored with earnestness for the abolition of slavery, he accuses it of having consented for a long time to its continuance? Is it logical thence to infer that it is not true that this immense benefit is due exclusively to Christianity? That slavery endured for a long time in presence of the Church is true; but it was always declining, and it only lasted as long as was necessary to realize the benefit without violence-without a shock-without compromitting its universality and its continuation. Moreover, we ought to subtract from the time of its continuance many ages, during which the Church was often proscribed, always regarded with aversion, and totally unable to exert a direct influence othe social organization. We ought also, to a great extent, to make exception of later times, as the Church had only begun to exert a direct and public influence, when the irruption of the northern barbarians took place, which, together with the corruption which infected the empire and spread in a frightful manner, produced such a perturbation, such a confused mass of languages, customs, manners, and laws, that it was almost impossible to make the regulating power produce salutary fruits. If, in later times, it has been difficult to destroy feudality; if there remain to this day, after ages. of struggles, the remnants of that constitution; if the slave-trade, although limited to certain countries and circumstances, still merits the universal reprobation which is raised throughout the world against its infamy; how can we venture to express our astonishment -how can we venture to make it a reproach against the Church, that slavery continued some ages after she had proclaimed men's fraternity with each other, and their equality before God? CHAPTER XVI. IDEAS AND MANNERS OF ANTIQUITY WITH RESPECT TO SLAVERY.-THE CHURCH BEGINS BY IMPROVING THE CONDITION OF SLAVES. HAPPILY the Catholic Church was wiser than philosophers; she knew how to confer on humanity the benefit of emancipation, without injustice or revolution. She knew how to regenerate society, but not in rivers of blood. Let us soe what was her conduct with respect to the abolition of slavery. Much has been already said of the spirit of love and fraternity which animates Christianity, and that is sufficient to show that its influence in this work must have been great. But perhaps sufficient care has not been taken in seeking the positive and practical means which the Church employed for this end. In the darkness of ages, in circumstances so complicated or various, will it be possible'to discover any traces of the path pursued by the Catholic Church in accomplish PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 95 ing the destruction of that slavery under which a large portion of the human race groaned? Will it be possible to do any thing more than praise her Christian charity? Will it be possible to point out a plan, a system, and to prove the existence and development of it, not by referring to a few expressions, to elevated thoughts, generous sentiments, and the isolated actions of a few illustrious men, but by exhibiting positive facts, and historical documents, which show what were the esprit de corps and tendency of the Church? I believe that this may be done, and I have no doubt that I shall be able to do it, by availing myself of what is most convincing and decisive in the matter, viz. the monuments of ecclesiastical legislation. In the first place, it will not be amiss to remember what I have already pointed out, viz. that when we have to do with the conduct, designs, and tendencies of the Church, it is by.no means necessary to suppose that these designs were conceived in their fullest extent by the mind of any individual in particular, nor that the merit and all the prudence of that conduct was understood by those who took part in it. It is not even necessary to suppose that the first Christians understood all the force of the tendencies of Christianity with respect to the abolition of slavery. What requires to be shown is, that the result has been obtained by the doctrines and conduct of the Church, as with Catholics, (although they know how to esteem at their just value the merit and greatness of each man,) individuals, when the Church is concerned, disappear. Their thoughts and will are nothing; the spirit which animates, vivifies, and directs the Church, is not the spirit of man, but that of God himself. Those who belong not to our faith will employ other names; but at least we shall agree in this, that facts, considered in this way, above the mind and the will of individuals, preserve much better their real dimensions; and thus the great chain of events in the study of history remains unbroken. Let it be said that the conduct of the Church was inspired, and directed by God; or that it was the result of instinct; that it was the development of a tendency contained in her doctrines; we will not now stay to consider the expressions which may be used by Catholics, or by philosophers; what we have to show is, that this instinct was noble and well-directed; that this tendency had a great object in view, and knew how to attain it. The first thing that Christianity did for slaves, was to destroy the errors which opposed, not only their universal emancipation, but even the improvement of their condition; that is, the first force which she employed in the attack was, according to her custom, the force of ideas. This first step was the more necessary, as the same thing applies to all other evils, as well as to slavery; every social evil is always accompanied by some error which produces or foments it. There existed not only the oppression and degradation of a large portion of the human race, but, moreover, an accredited error, which tended more and more to lower that portion of humanity. According to this opinion, slaves were a mean race, far below the dignity of freemen: they were a race degraded by Jupiter himself, marked by a stamp of humiliation, and predestined to their state of abjection and debasement. A detestable doctrine, no doubt, and contradicted by the nature of man, by history and experience; but which, nevertheless, reckoned distinguished men among its defenders, and which we see proclaimed for ages, to the shame of humanity and the scandal of reason, until Christianity came to destroy it, by undertaking to vindicate the rights of man. Homer tells us ( Odys. 17) that "Jupiter has deprived slaves of half the mind." We find in Plato a trace of the same doctrine, although he expresses himself, as he is accustomed to do, by the mouth of another; he ventures to advance the following: "It is said that, in the mind of slaves, there is nothing sound or complete; and that a prudent man ought not to trust that class of persons; which is equally attested by the wisest of our poets." Here Plato cites the 96 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. above-quoted passage of Homer (Dial. 8, de Legibus). But it is in the Politics of Aristotle that we find this degrading doctrine in all its deformity and nakedness. Some have wished to excuse this philosopher, but in vain; his own Words condemn him without appeal. In the first chapter of his work,. he explains the constitution of the family, and attempts to state the relations of husband and wife, of master and slave; he states that, as the wife is by nature different from the husband, so is the slave from the master. These are hiswords: "Thus the woman and the slave are distinguished by nature itself." Let it not be said that this is an expression that escaped from the pen of the writer; it was stated with a full knowledge, and is a rdsume.of his theory. In the third chapter, where he continues to analyze the elements which compose the family, after having stated "that a complete family is formed of free persons and slaves," he alludes particularly to the latter, and begins by combating an opinion which he thinks too favorable to them: " There are some," he says, "who think that slavery is a thing out of the order of nature, since it is the law itself which makes some free and others slaves, while nature makes no distinction." Before combating this opinion, he explains the relations between master and slave, by using the comparison of artist and instrument, and that of the soul and body; he continues thus: "If we compare man to woman, we find that the first is superior, therefore he commands; the woman is inferior, therefore she obeys. The same thing ought to take place among all men. Thus it is that those among them who are as inferior with respect to others, as the body is with respect to the soul, and the animal to man; those whose powers principally consist in the use of the body, the only service that can be obtained from them, they are naturally slaves." We should imagine, at first sigh't, that the philosopher spoke only of idiots; his words would seem to indicate this; but we shall see, by the context, that such is not his intention. It is evident that if he spoke only of idiots, he would prove nothing against the opinion which he desires to combat; for the number of them is nothing with respect to the generality of men. If he spoke only of idiots, of what use would be a theory founded on so rare and monstrous an exception? But we have no need of conjectures as to the real intention of the philosopher, he himself takes care to explain it to us, and tells'us at the same time for what reason he ventures to make use of expressions which seem, at first, to place the matter on another level. His intention is nothing less than to attribute to nature the express design of producing men of two kinds; one born for slavery, the other for liberty. The passage is too important and too curious to be omitted. It is this: "Nature has taken care to create the bodies of free men different from those of slaves; the bodies of the latter are strong, and proper for the mast necessary labors: those of freemen, on the contrary, well formed, although ill adapted for servile works, are proper for civil life, which consists in the management of things in war and peace. Nevertheless, the contrary often happens. To a free man is given the body of a slave; and to a slave the soul of a free man. There is no doubt that, if the bodies of some men were as much more perfect than others, as we see is the case in the image of the Gods, all the world would be of opinion that these men should be obeyed by those who had not the same beauty. If this is true in speaking of the body, it is still more so in speaking of the soul; although it is not so easy to see the beauty of the soul as that of the body. Thus it cannot be doubted that there are some men born for liberty, as others are for slavery; a slavery which is not only useful to the slaves themselves, but, moreover, just." A miserable philosophy, which, in order to support that degraded state, was obliged to have recourse to such subtilties, and ventured to impute to nature the intention of cre. ating different castes, some born to command and others to obey; a cruel philosophy, which thus labored to break the bonds of fraternity with which the PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 97 Author of nature has desired to knit together the human race, pretending to raise a barrier between man and man, and inventing theories to support inequality; not that inequality which is the necessary result of all social organization, but an inequality so terrible and degrading as that of slavery. Christianity raises its voice, and by the first words which it pronounces on slaves, declares them equal to all men in the dignity of nature, and in the participation of the graces which the Divine Spirit diffuses upon earth. We must remark the care with which St. Paul insists on this point; it seems as if he had in view those degrading distinctions which have arisen from a fatal forgetfulness of the dignity of man. The Apostle never forgets to inculcate to the faithful that there is no difference between the slave and the freeman. " For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." (1 Cor. xii. 13.) " For you are all children of God, by faith in Jesus Christ. Fo; as many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither bond or free; there is neither male or female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. iii. 26-28.) " Where there is neither Gentile nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian or Scythian, bond or free; but Christ is all and in all." (Colos. iii. 11.) The heart dilates at the sound of the voice thus loudly proclaiming the great principles of holy fraternity and equality. After having heard the oracles of Paganism inventing doctrines to degrade still more the unhappy slaves, we seem to awake from a painful dream, and to find ourselves in the light of day in the midst of the delightful reality. The imagination delights to contemplate the millions of men who, bent under degradation and ignominy, at this voice raised their eyes towards Heaven, and were animated with hope. It was with this teaching of Christianity as with all generous and fruitful doctrines; they penetrate the heart of society, remain there as a precious germ, and, developed by time, produce an immense tree which overshadows families and nations. When these doctrines were diffused among men, they could not fail to be misunderstood and exaggerated. Thus there were found some who pretended that Christian freedom was the proclamation of universal freedom. The pleasing words of Christ easily resounded in the ears of slaves: they heard themselves declared children of God, and brethren of Jesus Christ; they saw that there was no distinction made between them and their masters, between them and the most powerful lords of the earth; is it, then, strange that men only accustomed to chains, to labor, to every kind of trouble and degradation, exaggerated the principles of Christian liberty, and made applications of them which were neither just in themselves, nor capable of being reduced to practice? We know, from St. Jerome, that many, hearing themselves called to Christian liberty, believed that they were thereby freed. Perhaps the Apostle alluded to this error when, in his first epistle to Timothy, he said, "Whosoever are servants under the yoke, let them count their masters worthy of all honor; lest the name of the Lord and His doctrines be blasphemed." (1 Timothy vi. 1.) This error had been so general, that after three centuries it was still much credited; and the Council of Gangres, held about 324, was obliged to excommunicate those who, under pretence of piety, taught that slaves ought to quit their masters, and withdraw from their service. This was not the teaching of Christianity; besides, we have clearly shown that it would not have been the right way to achieve universal emancipation. Therefore this same Apostle, from whose mouth we have heard such generous language in favor of slaves, frequently inculcates to them obedience to their masters; but let us observe, that while fulfilling this duty imposed by the spirit of peace and justice which animates Christianity, he so explains the motives on which the obedience of slaves ought to be based, he calls to mind the obligations of masters in such affecting and energetic words, and establishes so expressly and conclusively the equality t13 I 9j8 PROTEbTANTISM COMI ARED WITH CATHOLICITY, of all men before God, that we cannot help seeing how great was hls compassion for that unhappy portion of humanity, and how much his ideas on this point differed from those of a blind and hardened world. There is in the heart of man a feeling of noble independence, which does not permit him to subject himself to the will of another, except when he sees that the claims to his obedience are founded on legitimate titles. If they are in accordance with reason and justice, and, above all, if they have their roots in the great objects of human love and veneration, his understanding is convinced, his heart is gained, and he yields. But if the reason for the command is only the will of another, if it is only man against man, these thoughts of equality ferment in his mind, then the feeling of independence burns in his heart, he puts on a bold front, and- his passions are excited. Therefore, when a willing and lasting.obedience is to be obtained, it is necessary that the man should be lost sight of in the ruler, and that he should only appear as the representative of a superior power, or the personification of the motives which convince the subject of the justice and utility of his submission; thus he does not obey the will of another because it is that will, but because it is the representative of a superior power, or the interpreter of truth and justice; then man no longer considers his dignity outraged, and obedience becomes tolerable and pleasing. It is unnecessary to say that such were not the titles on which was founded the obedience of slaves before Christianity: custom placed them in the rank of brutes; and the laws, outdoing it if possible, were expressed in language which cannot be read without indignation. Masters commanded because such was their pleasure, and slaves were compelled to obey, not on account of superior motives or moral obligations, but because they were the property of their masters, horses governed by the bridle, and mere mechanical machines. Was it, then, strange that these unhappy beings, drenched with misfortune and ignominy, conceived and cherished in their hearts that deep rancor, that violent hatred, and that terrible thirst for vengeance, which at the first opportunity exploded so fearfully? The horrible massacre of Tyre, the example and terror of the universe, according to the expression of Justin; the repeated revolts of the Penestes in Thessaly, of the Helotes in Sparta; the defections of the slaves of Chio and Athens; the insurrection under the command of Herdonius, and the terror which it spread in all the families of Rome; the scenes of blood, the obstinate and desperate resistance of the bands of Spartacus; was all this any thing but the natural result of the system of violence, outrage, and contempt with which slaves were treated? Is it not what we have seen repeated in modern times, in the catastrophes of the negro colonies? Such is the nature of man, whoever sows contempt and outrage will reap fury and vengeance. Christianity was well aware of these truths; and this is the reason why, while preaching obedience, it took care to found it on Divine, authority. If it confirmed to masters their rights, it also taught them an exalted sense of their obligation. Wherever Christian doctrines prevailed,. slaves might say: " It is true that we are unfortunate; birth, poverty, or the reverses of war have condemned us to misfortune; but at least we are acknowledged as men and brethren; between us and our masters there is a reciprocity of rights and obligations." Let us hear the Apostle: " You, slaves, obey those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the simplicity of your hearts, as to Jesus Christ himself. Not serving to the eye, as it were pleasing men, but, as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. With a good will serving, as to the Lord, and not to men. Knowing that whatsoever good things any man shall do, the same shall he receive from the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And you, masters, do the same thing to them, forbearing threatenings, knowing that the Lord both of them and you is in heaven, and there is no respect of persons with Him." (Eph. vi. 5-9.) In the Epistle to the Colossians he iu PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 99 eulcates the same doctrine of obedience anew, basing it on the same motives; for, to console the unfortunate slaves, he tells them: "You shall receive of the Lord the reward of inheritance: serve ye the Lord Christ. For he that doth wrong shall receive for that which he hath done wrongfully, and there is no respect of persons with God" (Colos. iii. 24, 25); and lower down, addressing himself to masters: "Masters, do to your servants that which is just and equal, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven." (iv. 1.) The diffusion of such beneficent doctrines necessarily tended to improve greatly the condition of slaves; their immediate effect was to soften that excessive rigor, that cruelty which would be incredible if it were not incontrovertibly proved. We know that the master had the right of life and death, and that he abused that power even to putting a slave to death from caprice, as Quintus Flaminius did in the. midst of a festival. Another caused one of these unfortunate beings to be thrown to the fishes, because he broke a glass of crystal This is related of Vedius Pollio; and this horrible cruelty was not confined to the circle of a few families subject to a master devoid of compassion; no, cruelty was formed into a system, the fatal but necessary result of erroneous notions on this point, and of the forgetfulness of the sentiments. of humanity. This violent system could only be supported by constantly trampling upon the slave; and there was no cessation of tyranny until the day when he, with superior power, attacked his master and destroyed him. An ancient proverb said, " So many slaves, so many enemies." We have already seen the ravages committed by men thus rendered savage by revenge, whenever they were able to break their chains; but certainly, when it was desired to terrify them, their masters did not yield to them in ferocity. At Sparta, on one occasion when they feared the ill-will of the Helotes, they assembled them all at the teriple of Jupiter, and put them to death. (Thu(yd. b. iv.) At Rome, whenever a nmaster was assassinated, all his slaves were condemned to death. We cannot read in Tacitus without a shudder (Ann. 1. xiv. 43) the horrible scene which was witnessed when the prefect of the town, Pedanius Secundus, was assassinated by one of his slaves. Not less than four hundred were to die; all, according to the ancient custom, were to be led to punishment. This cruel and pitiable spectacle, in which so many of the innocent were to suffer death, excited the compassion of the people, who raised a tumult to prevent this horrid butchery. The Senate, in doubt, deliberated on the affair, when an orator named Cassius maintained with energy that it was necessary to complete the bloody execution, not only in obedience to the ancient custom, but also because without it it would be impossible to preserve themselves from the ill-will of the slaves. His words are all dictated by injustice and tyranny; he sees on all sides dangers and conspiracies; he can imagine no other safeguards than force and terror. The following passage is above all remarkable in his speech, as showing in a few words the ideas and manners of the ancients in this matter: "Our ancestors," says the senator, " always mistrusted the' character of slaves, even of those who, born on their possessions and in their houses, might be supposed. to have conceived from their cradle an affection for their masters; but as we have slaves of foreign nations, differing in customs and religion, this rabble can only be restrained by terror." Cruelty prevailed, the boldness of the people was repressed, the way was filled with soldiers, and the four hundred unfortunate beings were led to punishment. To soften this cruel treatment, to banish these frightful atrocities, ought to have been the first effect of the Christian doctrines; and we may rest assured that the Church never lost sight of so important an object. She devoted all her efforts to improve as much as possible the condition of slaves; in punishments she caused mildness to be substituted for cruelty; and what was more important than all, she labored to put reason in the place of caprice, and to t00 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. make the impetuosity of masters yield to the calmness of judges; that is to say, she every day assimilated the condition of slaves more and more to that of freemen, by making right and not might reign over them. The Church never forgot the noble lesson which the Apostle gave when writing to Philemon, and interceding in favor of a fugitive slave named Onesimus; he spoke in his favor with a tenderness which this unhappy class had never before inspired: "I beseech thee," he says to him, "for my son Onesimus. Receive him as my own bowels; no more as a slave, but as a most dear brother. If he hath wronged thee in any thing, or is in thy debt, put that to my account." (Epis. to Phil.) The Council of Elvira, held in the beginning of the fourth century, subjects the woman who shall have beaten her slave so as to cause her death in three days to many years of penance; the Council of Orleans, held in 549, orders that if a slave guilty of a fault take refuge in a church, he is to be restored to his master, but not without having exacted from the latter a promise, confirmed by oath, that he will not do him any harm; that if the master, in violation of his oath, maltreat the slave, he shall be separated from the communion of the faithful and the sacraments. This canon shows us two things: the habitual cruelty of masters, and the zeal of the Church to soften the treatment of slaves. To restrain this cruelty, nothing less than an oath was required; and the Church, always so careful in these things, yet considered the matter important enough to justify and require the invocation of the sacred name of God. The favor and protection which the Church granted to slaves rapidly extended. It seems that in some places the custom was introduced of requiring a promise on oath, not only that the slave who had taken refuge in the church should not be ill-treated in his person, but even that no extraordinary work should be imposed on him, and that he should wear no distinctive mark. This custom, produced no doubt by zeal for humanity, but which may have occasioned some inconveniences by relaxing too much the ties of obedience, and allowing excesses on the part of slaves, appears to be alluded to in a regulation of the Council of Epaone (now Abbon, according to some), held about 517. This Council labors to stop the evil by prescribing a prudent moderation; but without withdrawing the protection already granted. It ordains, in the 39th canon, " That if a slave, guilty of any atrocious offence, takes refuge in a church, he shall be saved from corporal punishment; but the master shall not be compelled to swear that he will not impose on him additional labor, or that he will not cut off his hair, in ordc.r to make known his fault." Observe that this restriction is introduced only in the case when the slave shall have committed a heinous offence, and even in this case all the power allowed to the master consists in imposing on the slave extraordinary labor, or distinguishing him by cutting his hair. Perhaps such indulgence may be considered excessive; but we must observe that when abuses are deeply rooted, they cannot be eradicated without a vigorous effort. At first sight it often appears as if the limits of prudence were passed; but this apparent excess is only the inevitable oscillation which is observed before things regain their right position. The Church had therein no wish to protect crime, or give unmerited indulgence; her object was to check the violence and caprice of masters; she did not wish to allow a man to suffer torture or death because such was the will of another. The establishment of just la laws and legitimate tribunals, the Church has never opposed; but she has never given her consent to acts of private violence. The spirit of opposition to the exercise of private force, which includes social organization, is'clearly shown to us in the 15th canon of the Council of Merida, held in 666. I have already shown that.slaves formed a large portion of property. As the division of labor was made in conformity with this principle, slaves were absolutely necessary to those who possessed property, especially when it was considerable. Now the (hurch found this to be the case; and as she could not change the organization PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 101 of society on a sudden, she was obliged to yield to necessity, and admit slavery. But if she wished to introduce improvements in the lot of slaves in general, it was good for her to set the example herself: this example is found in the canon I have just quoted. There, after having forbidden the bishops and priests to maltreat the servants of the Church by mutilating their limbs, the Council ordains that if a slave commit an offence, he shall be delivered to the secular judges, but so that the bishops shall moderate the punishment inflicted on him. We see by this canon that the right of mutilation exercised by private masters was still in use; and perhaps it was still more strongly established, since we see that the Council limits itself to interdicting that kind of punishment to ecclesiastics, without saying any thing as to laymen. No doubt, one of the motives for this prohibition made to ecclesiastics, was to prevent their shedding human blood, and thus rendering themselves incapable of exercising their lofty ministry, the principal act of which is the august sacrifice in which they offer a victim of peace and love; but this does not in any way detract from the merit of the regulation, or at all diminish its influence on the improvement of the condition of slaves. It was the substitution of public vengeance for private; it was again to proclaim the equality of slaves and freemen with respect to the effusion of their blood; it was to declare that the hands which had shed the blood of a slave, had contracted the same stain as if they had shed that of a freeman. Now, it was necessary to inculcate these salutary truths on men's minds in every way, for they ran in direct contradiction to the ideas and manners of antiquity; it was necessary to labor assiduously to destroy the shameful and cruel exceptions which continued to deprive the majority of mankind of a participation in the rights of humanity. There is,'in the canon which I have just quoted, a remarkable circumstance, which shows the solicitude of the Church to restore to slaves the dignity and respect of which they had been deprived. To shave the hair of the head was among the Goths a very ignominious punishment; which, according to Lucas de Tuy, was to them more cruel than death itself. It will be understood, that whatever was the force of prejudice on this point, the Church might have allowed the shaving of the hair without incurring the stain which was attached to the shedding of blood. Yet she was not willing to allow it, which shows us how attentive she was to destroy the marks of humiliation impressed on slaves. After having enjoined priests and bishops to deliver criminal slaves to the judges, she commands them " not to allow them to be shaved ignominiously." No care was too great in this matter; to destroy one after another the odious exceptions which affected slaves, it was necessary to seize upon all favorable opportunities. This necessity is clearly shown by the manner in which the eleventh Council of Toledo, held in 675, expresses itself. This Council, in its 6th canon, forbids bishops themselves to judge crimes of a capital nature, as it also forbids them to order the mutilation of members. Behold in what terms it was considered necessary to state that this rule admitted of no exception; "not even," says the Council, "with respect to the slaves of the Church." The evil was great, it could not be cured without assiduous care. Even the right of life and death, the most cruel of all, could not be extirpated without much trouble; and cruel applications of it were made in the beginning of the sixth century, since the Council of Epaone, in its 34th canon, ordains that "the master who, of his own authority, shall take away the life of his slave, shall be cut off for two years from the communion of the Church." After the middle of the ninth century, similar attempts were still made, and the Council of Worms, held in 868, labored to repress them, by subjecting to two years of penance the master who, of his own authority, shall have put his slave to death. I 2 102 CHAPTER XVII. MEANS EMPLOYED BY THE CHURCH TO ENFRANCHISE SLAVES. WHILE improving the condition of slaves and assimilating it as much as possible to that of freemen, it was necessary not to forget the universal eman. cipation; for it was not enough to ameliorate slavery, it was necessary to abolish it. The mere force of Christian notions, and the spirit of charity which was spread at the same time with them over the world, made so violent an attack on the state of slavery, that they were sure sooner or later to bring about its complete abolition. It is impossible for society to remain for a long time under an order of things which is formally opposed to the ideas with which it is imbued. According to Christian maxims, all men have a common origin and the same destiny; all are brethren in Jesus Christ; all are obliged to love each other with all their hearts, to assist each other in their necessities, to avoid offending each other even in words; all are equal before God, for they will all be judged without exception of persons. Christianity extended and took root everywhere -took possession of all classes, of all branches of society; how, then, could the state of slavery last-a state of degradation which makes man the property of another, allows him to be sold like an animal, and deprives him of the sweetest ties of family and of all participation in the advantages of society? Two things so opposite could not exist together; the laws were in favor of slavery, it is true; it may even be said that Christianity did not make a direct attack on those laws. But, on the other hand, what did it do? It strove to make itself master of ideas.and manners, communicated to them a new impulse, and gave them a different direction. In such a case, what did laws avail? Their rigor was relaxed, their observance was neglected, their equity began to be doubted, their utility was disputed, their fatal effects were remarked, and they gradually fell into desuetude, so that sometimes it was not necessary to strike a blow to destroy them. They were thrown aside as things of no use; or, if they deserved the trouble of an express abolition, it was only for the sake of ceremony; it was a body interred with honor. But let it not be supposed, after what I have just said, that in attributing so much importance to Christian ideas and manners, I mean that the triumph of these ideas and manners was abandoned to that force alone, without that cooperation on the part of the Church which the time and circumstances required. Quite the contrary: the Church, as I have already pointed out, called to her aid all the means the most conducive to the desired result. In the first place, it was requisite, to secure the work of emancipation, to protect from all assault the liberty of the freed-liberty which unhappily was often attacked and put in great danger. The causes of this melancholy fact may be easily found in the remains of ancient ideas and manners, in the cupidity of powerful men, the system of violence made general by the irruptions of the barbarians, in the poverty, neglect, and total want of education and morality in which slaves must have been when they quitted servitude. It must be supposed that a great number of them did not know all the value of lib,;rtv. Shat they did not always conduct themselves, in their new state, accort'llil to tlh dictates of reason and the exigences of justice; and that, newly ent, eld )r ttn' tossession of the right; of freemen, they did not know how to fulfii -ll then n. w obligations. 1Pu, these different inconveniences, inseparable froit th, ataturt of things, wc;-r, nm to hinder the consummation of an enterprise;allc:l foi bl th by religicu aleic humanity, and it was proper to be resigned to thtm from the consideration co the numerous motives for excusing the conduct of th,. enfranchised; the stat which these men had just quitted had checked tbh'tiovaloprent of their mora and intellectual faculties. PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 103 The liberty of newly-emancipated slaves was protected against the attacks of injustice, and clothed with an inviolable sanctity, from the time that their enfranchisement was connected with things which then exercised the most powerful ascendency. Now the Church, and all that belonged to her, was in this influential position; therefore the custom, which was then introduced, of performing the manumission in the churches, was undoubtedly very favorable to the progress of liberty. This custom, by taking the place of ancient usages, caused them to be forgotten; it was, at the same time, a tacit declaration of the value of human liberty in the sight of God, and a proclamation, with additional authority, of the equality of men before Him; for the manumission was made in the same place where it was so often read, that before Him there was no exception of persons; where all earthly distinctions disappeared, and all men were commingled and united by the sweet ties of fraternity and love. This method of manumission more clearly invested the Church with the right of defending the liberty of the enfranchised. As she had been witness to the act, she could testify to the spontaneity and the other circumstances which assured its validity; she could even insist on its observance, by representing that the promised liberty could not be violated without profaning the sacred place, without breaking a pledge which had been given in the presence of God himself.. The Church did not forget to turn these circumstances to the advantage of the freed. Thus we see that the first Council of Orange, held in 441, ordains, in its 7th canon, that it was necessary to check, by ecclesiastical censures, whoever desired to reduce to any kind of servitude slaves who had been emancipated within the enclosure of the church. A century later we find the same prohibition repeated in the 7th canon of the fifth Council of Orleans, held in 549. The protection given by the Church to freed slaves was so manifest and known to all, that the custom was introduced of especially recommending them to her. This recommendation was sometimes made by will, as the Council of Orange, which I have just quoted, gives us to understand; for it orders that the emancipated who had been recommended to the Church by will, shall be protected from all kinds of servitude, by ecclesiastical censures. But this recommendation was not always made in a testamentary form. We read in the sixth canon of the sixth Council of Toledo, held in 589, that when any enfranchised persons had been recommended to the Church, neither they nor their children could be deprived of the protection of the Church: here they speak in general, without limitation to cases in which there had been a will. The same regulation may be seen in another Council of Toledo, held in 633, which simply says, that the Church will receive under her protection only the enfranchised of individuals who shall have taken care to recommend them to her. In the absence of all particular recommendation, and even when the manumission had not been made in the Church, she did not cease to interest herself in defending the freed, when their liberty was endangered. He who has any regard for the dignity of man, and any feeling of humanity in his heart, will certainly not find it amiss that the Church interfered in affairs of this kind; indeed, she acted as every generous man should do, in the exercise of the right of protecting the weak. We shall not be displeased, therefore, to find in the twenty-ninth canon of the Council of Agde in Languedoc, held in 506, a regulation commanding the Church, in case of necessity, to undertake the defence of those to whom their masters had given liberty in a lawful way. The zeal of the Church in all times and places for the redemption of captives has no less contributed to the great work of the abolition of slavery. We know that a considerable portion of slaves owed their servitude to the reverses of war. The mild character which we see in modern wars would have appeared fabulous to the ancients. Woe to the vanquished! might then be said with 104 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. perfect truth; there was nothing but slavery or death. The evil was rendered still greater by a fatal prejudice, which was felt with respect to the redemption of captives-a prejudice which was, nevertheless, founded on a trait of remarkable heroism. No doubt the heroic firmness of Regulus is worthy of all admiration. The hair stands upon our head when we read the powerful description of Horace; the book falls from our hands at this terrible passage: " Fertur,pudicae conjugis osculum Parvosque natos, ut capitis minor, Ab se removisse, et virilem Torvus humi posuisse vultum."-Lib. iii. od. 5. Nevertheless, if we lay aside the deep impression which such heroism produces on us, and the enthusiasm at all that shows a great soul, we must confess that this virtue bordered on ferocity; and that, in the terrible discourse of Regulus, that is a cruel policy, against which the sentiments of humanity would strongly recoil, if the mind were not, as it were, prostrated at the sight of the sublime disinterestedness of the speaker. Christianity could not consent to such doctrines; it could not allow the maxim to be maintained that, in'order to render men brave in battle, it was necessary to deprive them of,hope. The wonderful traits of valor, the magnificent scenes of force and constancy, which shine in every page of the history of modern nations, eloquently show that the Christian religion was not deceived; gentleness of.manners may be united with heroism. The ancients were always in excess, either in cowardice or ferocity; between these two extremes there is a middle way, and that has been taught to mankind by the Christian religion. Christianity, in accordance with its principles of fraternity and love, regarded the redemption of captives as one of the worthiest objects of its charitable zeal. Whether we consider the noble traits of particular actions, which have been preserved to us by history, or observe the spirit which guided the conduct of the Church; we shall find therein one of the most distinguished claims of the Christian religion to the gratitude of mankind. A celebrated writer of our times, M. de Chateaubriand, has described to us a Christian priest who, in the forests of France, voluntarily made himself a slave, who devoted himself to slavery for the ransom of a Christian soldier, and thus restored a husband to his desolate wife, and a father to three unfortunate orphan children. The sublime spectacle which Zachary offers us, when enduring slavery with calm serenity for the love of Jesus Christ, and for the unhappy being for whom he has sacrificed his liberty, is not a mere fiction of the poet. More than once, in the first ages of the Church, such examples were seen; and he who has wept over the sublime disinterestedness and unspeakable charity of Zachary, may be sure that his tears are only a tribute to the truth. " We have known," says St. Clement the Pope, "many of ours who have devoted themselves to captivity, in order to ransom their brethren." (First Letter to the Corinth. c. 55.) The redemption of captives was so carefully provided for by the Church that it was regulated by the ancient canons, and to fulfil it. she sold, if necessary, her ornaments, and even the sacred vessels. When unhappy captives were in question, her charity and zeal knew no bounds, and she went so far as to ordain that, however bad might be the state of her affairs, their ransom should be provided for in the first instance. (Caus. 12, 5, 2.) In the midst of revolutions produced by the irruption of barbarians, we see that the Church, always constant in her designs, forgot not the noble enterprise in which she was engaged. The beneficent regulations of the ancient canons fell not into forgetfulness or desuetude, and the generous words of the holy Bishop of Milan, in favor of slaves, found an echo which ceased not to be heard amid the chaos of those unhappy times. We see by the fifth canon of the Council of Macon, held in 585, that priests undertook the ransom of captives by devoting to it the Church property. The Corncil of Rheims, held in 625, inflicts the punishment PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 105 of suspension from his functions on ihe bishop who shall have destroyed the sacred vessels; but with generous foresight, it adds, "for any other motive than the redemption of captives;" and long afterwards, in the twelfth canon of the Council of Verneuil, held in 844, we find that the property of the Church was used for that merciful purpose. When the captive was restored to liberty, the Church did not deprive him of her protection; she was careful to continue it, by giving him letters of recommendation, for the double purpose of protecting him from new trouble during his journey, and of furnishing him with the means of repairing his losses during his captivity. We find a proof of this new kind of protection in the second canon of the Council of Lyons, held in 583, which ordains that bishops shall state in the letters of recommendation which they give to captives, the date and price of their ransom. The zeal for this work was displayed in the Church with so much ardor, that it went so far as to commit acts of imprudence which the ecclesiastical authority was compelled to check. These excesses, and this mistaken zeal, prove how great was the spirit of charity. We know by a Council, called that of St. Patrick, held in Ireland in the year 451 or 456, that some of the clergy ventured to procure the freedom of captives by inducing them to run away. - The Council, by its thirtysecond canon, very prudently checks this excess, by ordaining that the ecclesiastic who desires to ransom captives must do so with his own money; for to steal them, by inducing them to run away, was to expose the clergy to be considered as robbers, which was a dishonor to the Church. A remarkable document, which, while showing us the spirit of order and equity which guides the Church, at the same time enables us to judge how deeply was engraved on men's minds the maxim, that it is holy, meritorious, and generous to give liberty to captives; for we see that some persons had persuaded themselves that the excellence of the work justified seizing them forcibly. The disinterestedness-of the Church on this point is not less laudable. When she had employed her funds in the ransom of a captive, she did not desire from him any recompense, even when he had it in his power to discharge the debt. We have a certain proof of this in the letters of St. Gregory, where we see that that Pope reassures some persons who had been freed with the money of the Church, and who feared that after a time they would be called upon to pay the sum expended for their advantage. The Pope orders that no one, at any time, shall venture to disturb either them or their heirs, seeing that the sacred canons allow the employment of the goods of the Church for the ransom of captives. (L. 7, ep. 14.) The zeal of the Church for so holy a work must have contributed in an extraordinary way to diminish the number of slaves; the influence of it was so much the more salutary, as it was developed precisely at the time when it was most needed, that is, in those ages when the dissolution of.the Roman empire, the irruption of the barbarians, the fluctuations of so many peoples, and the ferocity of the invading nations, rendered wars so frequent, revolutions so constant, and the empire of force so habitual and prevailing. Without the beneficent and liberating intervention of Christianity, the immense number of slaves bequeathed by the old society to the new, far from diminishing, would liave been augmented more and more; for wherever the law of brute force prevails, if it be not checked and softened by a powerful element, the human race becomes rapidly debased, the'necessary result of which is the increase of slavery. This lamentable state of agitation and violence was in itself very likely to render the efforts which the Church made to abolish slavery useless; and it was not without infinite trouble that she prevented what she succeeded in preserving on one side, from being destroyed on the other. The absence of a central power, the complication of social relations, almost always badly determined, often affected by violence, and always deprived of the guarantee of stability and consistency, was the reason why there was no security either for things or persons 14 106 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. and that while properties were unceasingly invaded, persons were deprived of their liberty. So that it was at that time necessary to fight against the violence of individuals, as had been formerly done against manners and legislation. We see that the third canon of the Council of Lyons, held about 566, excommunicates those who unjustly retain free persons in slavery; in the seventeenth canon of the Council of Rheims, held in 625, it is forbidden, under the same penalty, to pursue free persons in order to reduce them to slavery: in the twentyseventh canon of the Council of London, held in 1102, the barbarous custom of dealing in men, like animals, is proscribed: and in the seventh canon of the Council of Coblentz, held in 922, he who takes away a Christian to sell him is declared guilty of homicide; a remarkable declaration, when we see liberty valued at as high a price as life itself. Another means of which the Church availed herself to abolish slavery was, to preserve for the unfortunate who had been reduced to that state by misery, a sure means of quitting it. We have already remarked above that indigence was qne of the causes of slavery, and we have seen that this was frequently the cause among the Gauls, as is evidenced by a passage of Caesar. We also know that by virtue of an ancient law, he who had fallen into slavery.could not recover his liberty without the consent of his master; as the slave was really property, no one could dispose of him without the consent of his master, and least of all himself. This law was in accordance with Pagan doctrines, but Christianity regarded the thing differently; and if the slave was still in her eyes a property, he did not cease to be a man. Thus on this point the Church refused to follow the strict rules of other properties; and when there was the least doubt, at the first favorable opportunity she took the side of the slave. These observations make us uilderstand all the value of the new law introduced by the Church, which ordained that persons who had been sold by necessity should be able to return to their former condition by restoring the price which they had received. This law, which is expressly laid down in a French Council, held about 616 at Boneuil, according to the common opinion, opened a wide field for the conquests of liberty; it supported in the heart of the slave a hope which urged him to seek and put into operation the means of obtaining his ransom, and it placed his liberty within the power of any one who, touched with his unhappy lot, was willing to pay or lend the necessary sum. Let us remember what we have said of the ardent zeal which was awakened in so many hearts for works of. this kind; let us call to mind that the property of the Church was always considered as well employed when it was used for the succor of the unfortunate, and we shall understand the incalculable influence of the regulation which we have just mentioned. We shall see that it was to close one of the most abundant sources of slavery, and prepare a wide path to universal emancipation. CHAPTER XVIII: CONTINUATION OF THE SAME SUBJECT. THE conduct of the Church with respect to the Jews also contributed to the abolition of slavery. This singular people, who bear on their forehead the mark of proscription, and are found dispersed among all nations, like fragments of insoluble matter floating in a liquid, seek to console themselves in their misfortune by accumulating treasures, and appear to wish to avenge themselves for the contemptuous neglect in which they are left by other nations, by gaining possession of their wealth by means of insatiable usury. In times when revolutions and so many calamities must necessarily have produced distress, the odious vice of unfeeling avarice must have had a fatal influence. The harsh PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 107 ness and cruelty of ancient laws and manners concerning debtors were not effaced, liberty was far from being estimated at its just value, and examples of persons who sold it to relieve their necessities were not wanting; it was therefore important to prevent the power of the wealthy Jews from reaching an exorbitant extent, to the detriment of the liberty of Christians. The unhappy notoriety which, after so many centuries, attaches to the Jews in this matter, proves that this danger was not imaginary; and facts of which we are now witnesses are a confirmation of what we advance. The celebrated Herder, in his Adrastus, ventures to prognosticate that the children of Israel, from their systematic and calculating conduct, will in time make slaves of all Christians. If this extraordinary and extravagant apprehension could enter the head of a distinguished man, in.circumstances which are certainly infinitely less favorable to the Jews, what was to be feared from this people in the unhappy times of which we speak? From these considerations, every impartial observer, every man who is not under the influence of the wretched desire.of taking the part of every kind of sect, in order to have the pleasure of accusing the Catholic Church, even at the risk of speaking against the interests of humanity; every observer who is not one of those who are less alarmed by an irruption of Caffres than by any regulation by which the ecclesiastical power appears in the smallest degree to extend the circle of its prerogative; every man, I say, who is neither thus bitter, little, nor pitiful, will see, not only without being scandalized, but even with pleasure, that the Church, with prudent vigilance, watched the progress of the Jews, and lost no opportunity of favoring their Christian slaves, until they were no longer allowed to have any. The third Council of Orleans, held in 538, by its 13th canon, forbids Jews to compel Christian slaves to do things contrary to the religion of Jesus Christ. This regulation, which guarantied the liberty of the slave in the sanctuary of conscience, rendered him respectable even in the eyes of his master: it was besides a solemn proclamation of the dignity of man, it was a declaration that slavery could not extend its dominion over the sacred region of the mind. Yet this was not enough; it was proper also that the recovery of their liberty should be facilitated to the slaves of Jews. Three years only pass away; a fourth Council is held at Orleans; let us observe the progress which the question had made in so short a time. This Council, by its 30th canon, allows the Christian slaves who shall take refuge in the church to be ransomed, on paying to their Jewish master the proper price. If we pay attention, we shall see that such a regulation must have produced abundant results in favor of liberty, as it gave Christian slaves the opportunity of flying to the churches, and there imploring, with more effect, the charity of their brethren, to gain the price of their ransom. The same Council, in its 31st canon, ordains that the Jew who shall pervert a Christian slave shall be condemned to lose all his slaves; a new sanction given to the security of the slave's conscience-a new way opened to liberty. The Church constantly advanced with that unity of plan-that admirable consistency-which even her enemies have acknowledged in her. In the short interval between the period alluded to and the latter part of the same century, her progress was more perceptible. We observe, in the canonical regulations of the latter period, a wider scope, and, if we may so speak, greater boldness. In the Council of Micon, held in 581 or 582, canon 16, Jews are expressly forbidden to have Christian slaves; and it is allowed to ransom those who are in their possession for twelve sous. We find the same prohibition in the 14th canon of the Council of Toledo, held in 589; so that at this time the Church shows what her desire is; she is unwilling that a Christian should be in any way the slave of a Jew. Constant in her design, she checked the evil by all the means in her power; if it was necessary, limiting the right of seliing slaves, when there was danger of their falling into the hands of Jews. 108 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. Thus we see that, by the 9th canon of the Council of Chalons, held in 650, it is forbidden to sell slaves out of the kingdom of Clovis, lest they should fall into the power of Jews. Yet the intention of the Church on this point was not understood by all, and her views were not seconded as they ought to have been; but she did not cease to repeat and inculcate them. In the middle of the seventh century there were found clergy and laity who sold their Christian slaves to Jews. The Church labored to check this abuse. The tenth Council of Toledo, held in 657, by its 7th canon, forbids Christians, and especially clerics, to sell their slaves to Jews; the Council adds these noble words: " They cannot be ignorant that these slaves have been redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ; wherefore they ought rather to buy than sell them." This ineffable goodness of a God made man, who had shed His blood for the redemption of all men, was the powerful motive which urged the Church to interest herself with so much zeal in the enfranchisement of slaves; and, indeed, was it not enough to inspire horror for so degrading an inequality, to think that these same men, reduced to the level of brutes, had been, as well as their masters, as well as the most powerful monarchs upon earth, the objects of the merciful intentions of the Most High? "Since our Redeemer, the Creator of all things," said Pope S. Gregory, "has deigned, in His goodness, to assume the flesh of man, in order to restore to us our pristine liberty, by breaking, through the means of His Divine grace, the bonds of servitude, which held us captives, it is a salutary deed to restore to men, by enfranchisement, their native liberty; for, in the beginning, nature made them all free, and they have only been subjected to the yoke of servitude by the law of nations." (L. 5, lett. 72.) During all times the Church has considered it very necessary to limit, as much as possible, the alienation of her property; and it may be said that the general rule of her conduct in this point was to trust very little to the discretion of any one of her ministers individually; she thus endeavored to prevent dilapidations, which otherwise would have been frequent. As her possessions were dispersed on all'sides, and intrusted to ministers chosen from all classes of the people, and exposed to the various influences which the relations of blood, friendship, and a thousand other circumstances, the effects of difference of character, knowledge, prudence, and even of times and places, always exercise, the Church showed herself very watchful in giving her sanction to the power of alienation; and, when requisite, she knew how to act with salutary rigor against those ministers who, neglecting their duty, wasted the funds confided to them. We have seen that, in spite of all this, she was not stopped by any consideration when the ransom of captives was in question; it may be also shown that, with respect to property in slaves, she saw things in a different light, and changed her rigor into indulgence. When slaves had faithfully served the Church, the Bishops could grant them their liberty, and add a gift to assist them in maintaining themselves. This judgment as to the merit of slaves appears to have beep confided to the discretion of the Bishops; and it is evident that such a regulation opened a wide door to their charity; at the same time, it stimulated the slaves to behave themselves, so as to deserve so precious a recompense. As it might happen that the succeeding Bishop might raise doubts as to the sufficiency of the motives which induced his predecessor to give liberty to a slave, and attempt afterwards to call it in question, it was ordained that they should respect the appointments of their predecessors on this point, and leave to the enfranchised not only their liberty, but also the gratuity which had been given to them in lands, vineyards, or houses: this is prescribed in the 7th canon of the Council of Agde in Languedoc, held in the year 506. Let it not be objected that manumission is forbidden by the canons of this Council in other places; they speak only in general terms, and allude not to cases where slaves PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY, 109 had merited well. Alienations or mortgages made by a Bishop who left no property were to be revoked. This regulation itself shows that it alludes to cases in which the Bishops had acted against the canons. Yet if he had given liberty to any slaves, the rigor of the law was mitigated in their favor, and it was ordained that the enfranchised should continue to enjoy their liberty. This is ordained by the 9th canon of the Council of Orleans, held in 541'. This canon only iniposes on the enfranchised the obligation of lending their services to the Church; services which were evidently only those of the enfranchised. On the other hand, she recompensed them with the protection which she always granted to men in this condition. As another proof of the indulgence of the Church with respect to slaves, may be cited the 10th canon of the Council of Celchite, in England, held in 816, the result of which must have been to enfranchise, in a few years, all the English slaves of the Churches existing in the countries where the Council was observed. Indeed, this canon ordained that, at the death of a Bishop, all his English slaves should be set at liberty; it added, that each of the other Bishops and Abbots might enfranchise three slaves on the occasion, by giving each of them three sous. Such regulations smoothed the way more and more, and prepared circumstances and men's minds, so that, some time later, was witnessed that noble scene, where, at the Council of Armagh, in 1172, liberty was given to all the English who were slaves in Ireland. The advantageous conditions enjoyed by the slaves of the Church were so much the more valuable, because a regulation newly introduced prevented their losing them. If they could have passed into the hands of other masters, in this case they would have lost the benefits which they derived from living under the rule of so kind a mistress. But happily, it was forbidden to exchange them for others; and if they left the power of the Church, it was for freedom. We have a positive proof of this regulation in the decretals of Gregory IX. (1. 3, t. 19, chaps. 3 and 4). It should be observed that in this document the slaves of the Church are regarded as consecrated to God; thereon is founded the regulation which prevents their passing into other hands and leaving the Church, except as freemen. We also see there that the faithful, for the good of their souls, had the custom of offering their slaves to God and the Saints. By placing them thus in the power of the Church, they put them out of common dealing and prevented their again falling into profane servitude. It is useless to enlarge on the salutary effect which must have been produced by these ideas and manners, in which we see religion so intimately allied with the cause of humanity; it is enough to observe, that the spirit of that age was highly religious, and that which was attached to the cause of religion was sure to ride in safety. Religious ideas, by constantly developing their strength and directing their action to all branches, were intended in a special manner to relieve men by all possible means from the yoke of slavery. On this subject we may be allowed to remark a canonical regulation of the time of Gregory the Great. In a Council at Rome, held in 595, and presided over by that Pope, a new means' of escaping from their degraded state was offered to slaves, by deciding that liberty should be given to all those who desired to embrace the monastic life. The words of the holy Pope are worthy of attention; they show the ascendency of religious motives, and how much these motives preponderated over considerations and interests of a worldly nature. This important document is found in the letters of St. Gregory; it may be read in the notes at the end of the volume. To imagine that such regulations would remain barren, is to mistake the spirit of those times: on the contrary, they produced the most important effects. We may form an idea of them by reading in the decree of Gratian (Distin. 54, c. 12), that they led to scandal; slaves fled from the houses of their masters and took K 110 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITi. refuge in monasteries, under pretext of religion: It was necessary to check this abuse, against which complaints arose on all sides. Without waiting to consider what these abuses themselves indicate, is it difficult to imagine that these regulations of the Church must have had valuable results? They not only gained liberty, for a great many slaves, but also raised them very much in the eyes of the world, for they placed them in a state which every day gained importance and acquired an immense prestige and a powerful influence. We may form an idea of the profound change which took place every day in the organization of society, thanks to these various means, by fixing our attention for a moment on what resulted with respect to the ordination of slaves. The discipline of the Church on this point was in accordance with her doctrines. The slave was a man like other men, and he could be ordained as well as the greatest noble. Yet while he was subject to the power of his master, he was devoid of the independence necessary for the dignity of the sacred ministry; therefore it was required that he should not be ordained until he had been previously set at liberty. Nothing could be more just, reasonable, and prudent, than the limit thus placed on a discipline otherwise so noble and generous-a discipline which was in itself an eloquent protest in favor of the dignity of man. The Church solemnly declared that the misfortune of being a slave did not reduce him below the level of other men, for she did not think it unworthy of her to choose her ministers from among those who had been in servitude. By placing in so honorable a sphere those who had been slaves, she labored with lofty generosity to disperse the prejudices which existed against those'who were placed in that unhappy condition, and created strong and effective ties between them and the most venerated class of freemen. The abuse which then crept in of conferring orders on slaves, without the consent of their masters, is above all worthy of our attention; an abuse, it is true, altogether contrary to the sacred canons, and which was checked by the Church with praiseworthy zeal, but which is not the less useful in enabling the observer duly to appreciate the profound effect of religious ideas and institutions. Without attempting in any way to excuse what was blamable therein, we may very well make use of the abuse itself, by considering that it frequently happens that abuses are only exaggerations of a good principle. Religious ideas accord but ill with slavery, although supported by laws; thence the incessant struggle, repeated under different aspects, but always directed towards the same end, viz. universal emancipation. It appears to us that we may now the more confidently avail ourselves of this kind of argument, as we have seen the most dreadful attempts at revolution treated with indu.gence, on account of the principles with which the revolutionists were imbuedt and the objects which they had in view; objects which, as every one knows, were nothing less than an entire change in the organization of society. The abuse to which we have alluded, is attested by the curious documents which arc found collected in the decree of Gratian (Dist. 54, c. 9, 10, 11, 12). When we examine these documents with attention, we find, 1st, that the number of slaves thus' freed was very considerable, since the complaints on this subject were almost universal: 2d, that the Bishops were generally in favor of the slaves; that they carried their protection very far; that they labored in all ways to realize these.doctrines of equality; indeed, it is affirmed in these documents that there was hardly a Bishop who could not be charged with this reprehensible compliance: 3d, that slaves were aware of this spirit of protection, and were eager to throw off their chains and cast themselves into the arms of the Church: 4th, that this combination of circumstances must have produced in men's minds a movement'very favorable to liberty; and that this affectionate communication established between slaves and the Church, then so powerful and influential; must soon have weakened slavery, and rapidly have promoted the advance of nations towards that liberty which completely triumphed a few centuries later.. PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 111 Tlie Church of Spain, whose civilizing influence has received so many eulogiums from men certainly but little attached to Catholicity, equally displays her lofty views and consummate prudence on this point. Charitable zeal in favor of slaves was so ardent, the tendency to.raise them to the sacred ministry so decided, that it was necessary to allow free scope to this generous impulse, while reconciling it as much as possible with the sacredness of the ministry. Such was the two-fold object of the discipline introduced into Spain, by virtue of which it was allowed to confer sacred orders on the slaves of the Church, on their being previously enfranchised. This is ordered by the 74th canon of the fourth Council of Toledo, held in 633; it is also inferred from the 11th canon of the ninth Council of Toledo, which ordains that Bishops shall not introduce the slaves of the Church among the clergy without having previously given them their liberty. It is remarkable that this regulation was extended by the 18th canon of the Council of Merida, in 666, which gives to parish-priests the right of selecting clerks among the slaves of their own church, with the obligation of maintaining them according to their means. This wise discipline prevented, without any injustice, all the difficulties that might have ensued from the ordination of slaves; while it was a very mild way of effecting the most beneficent results, since in conferring orders on the slaves of the Church, it was easy to choose from among them such as were most deserving by their intellectual and moral qualifications. At the same time, it was affording the Church a most favorable and honorable mode of liberating her slaves, by enrolling them among her ministers. Finally, the Church by her generous conduct towards slaves, gave a salutary example to the laity. We have seen that she allowed the parochial clergy, as well as the bishops, the privilege of setting them free; and this must have rendered it less painful for laymen to emancipate their slaves, when circumstances seemed to call the latter to the sacred ministry. CHAPTER XIX. DOCTRINES OF S. AUGUSTINE AND S. THOMAS AQUINAS ON THE SUBJECT OF SLAVERY.-RE'SUME OF THE SUBJECT. THUS did the Church, by a variety of means, break the chains of slavery, without ever exceeding'the limits marked out by justice and prudence: thus did she banish from among Christians that degrading condition, so contrary to their exalted ideas on the dignity of man, and their generous feelings of fraternity and love. Wherever Christianity shall be introduced, chains of iron shall be turned into gentle ties, and humiliated men shall' raise their ennobled heads. With what pleasure do we read the remarks of one of the greatest men of Christianity, S. Augustine, on this point (De Civit. Dei, 1. xix. c. 14, 15, 16). He establishes in a few words the obligation incumbent upon all who rulefathers, husbands, and masters-to watch over the good of those who are under them: he lays down the advantage of those who obey, as one of the foundations for obedience; he says that the just do not rule from ambition or pride, but from duty and the desire of doing good to their subjects: "Neque enim dominandi cupiditate imperant, sed officio consulendi, nec principandi superbia, sed providendi misericordia;" and by these noble maxims he proscribes all opinions which tend to tyranny, or found obedience on any degrading notions; but on a sudden, as if this great mind apprehended some reply in violation of human dignity, he grows warm, he boldly faces the question; he rises to his 112 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. full height, and, giving free scope to the noble thoughts that ferment in his mind, he invokes the idea of nature and the will of God in favor of the dignity of man thus menaced. He says: "Thus wills the order of nature; thus has man been created by God. He has given him to rule over the fishes of the sea, the birds of the air, and the reptiles that crawl on the face of the earth. He has ordained that reasoning creatures, made according to His own image, shall rule only over creatures devoid of reason. Iie has not established the dominion of man over man, but that of man over the brute." This passage of S. Augustine is one of those bold features which shine forth in writers of genius, when. grieved by the sight of a painful object, they allow their generous ideas and feelings to have free scope, and cease to restrain their daring energies. Struck by the force of the expression, the reader, in suspense and breathless, hastens to read the succeeding lines; he fears that the author may be mistaken, seduced by the nobleness of his heart, and carried away by the force of his genius. But, with inexpressible pleasure, he finds that'the writer has in no degree departed from the path of true doctrine, when, like a brave champion, he has lescended into the arena to defend the cause of justice and humanity. Thus does S. Augustine now appear to us: the sight of so many unfortunate beings groaning in slavery, victims of the violence and caprice of their masters, afflicted his generous mind. By the light of reason and the doctrines of Christianity, he saw no reason why so considerable a portion of the human race should be condemned to live in such debasement; wherefore, when proclaiming the doctrines of submission and obedience, he labors to discover the cause of such ignominy; and not being able to find it in the nature of mah, he seeks for it in sin, in malediction. "The primitive just men," says he, "were rather established as pastors over their flocks, than as kings over other men; whereby God gives us to understand what was called for by the order of creation, and what was required. by the punishment of sin; for the condition of slavery has, with reason, been imposed on the sinner. Thus we do not find the word slave in the Scriptures before the day when the just man, Noah, gave it as a punishment to his guilty son; whence it follows that this word came from sin, and not from nature." This manner of considering slavery as the offspring of sin, as the fruit of the Divine malediction, was of the highest importance. By protecting the dignity of human nature, that doctrine completely destroyed all the prejudices of natural superiority which the pride of free men could entertain. Thereby also, slavery was deprived of all its supposed value as a political principle or means of government: it could only be regarded as one of the numberless scourges inflicted on the human race by the anger of the Most High. Henceforth slaves bad a motive for resignation, while the absolute power of masters was checked, and the compassion of all free men was powerfully excited. All were born in sin, all might have been in a state of slavery. To make a boast of liberty would have been like the conduct of a man who, during an epidemic, should boast of having preserved his health, and imagine that on that account he had a right to insult the unhappy sick. In a word, the state of slavery was a scourge, nothing more; like pestilence, war, famine, or any thing else of the kind. The duty of all men was to labor to remedy and abolish it. Such doctrines did not remain sterile. Proclaimed in the face of day, they were heard in all parts of the Catholic world; and not only were they put in practice, as we have seen by numberless examples, but they were carefully preserved as a precious theory, throughout the confusion of the times. After the lapse of eight centuries, we see then4 repeated by one of the brightest lights of the Catholic Church, S. Thomas Aquinas (I. p. q. xcvi. art. 4). That great man does not see in slavery either difference of race or imaginary inferiority or means of government; he only considers it as a scourge inflicted on humanity;y the dins of the first man. PROTESTANTISM COMPARED Wl [It CATHOLICITY. 113 Such is the repugnance with which Christians have looked upon slavery: we see from this, how false is the assertion of M. Guizot: "' It does not seem that Christian society was surprised or much offended by it." It is true there was not that blind disturbance and irritation which, despising all barriers and paying no attention to the rules of justice or the counsels of prudence, ran with foolish haste to efface the mark of degradation and ignominy. But if that disturbance and irritation are meant which are caused by the sight of oppression and outrages committed against man, sentiments which can well accord with longanimity and holy resignation, and which, without checking for a moment the action of charitable zeal, nevertheless avoid precipitating events, preferring mature arrangement in order to secure a complete result; how can this perturbation of mind and holy indignation be better proved to have existed in the bosom of the Church than by the facts and doctrines which we have just quoted What more eloquent protest against the continuance of slavery can you have than the doctrine of these two illustrious doctors? They declare it, as we have just seen, to be the fruit of malediction, the chastisement of the prevarication the human race; and they only acknowledge its existence by considering it as one of the great scourges that afflict humanity. of I have explained, with sufficient evidence, the profound reasons which induced the Church to recommend obedience to slaves, and she cannot be reproached on that account with forgetting the rights of humanity. We must not suppose on that account that Christian society was wanting in the boldness necessary for telling the whole truth; but it told only the pure and wholesome truth. What took place with respect to the marriages of slaves is a proof of what I advance. We know that their union was not regarded as a real marriage, and that even that union, such as it was, could not be contracted without the consent of their masters, under pain of being considered as void. Iere was a flagrant violation of reason and justice. What did the Church do? She directly reprobated so gross a violation of the rights of nature. Let us hear what Pope Adrian I. said on this subject: "According to the words of the Apostles, as in Jesus Christ we ought not to deprive either slaves or freemen of the sacraments of the Church, so it is not allowed in. any way to prevent the marriage of slaves; and if their marriages have been contracted in spite of the opposition and repugnance of their masters, nevertheless they ought not to be dissolved in any way." (De Conju. Serv., lib. iv. tom. 9, c. 1.) And let it not be supposed that this regulation, which secured the liberty of slaves on one of the most important points, was restricted to particular circumstances; no, it was something more; it was a proclamation of their freedom in this matter. The Church was unwilling to allow that man, reduced to the level of the brute, should be forced to obey the caprice or the interest of another, without regard to the feelings of his heart. St. Thomas was of the same opinion, for he openly maintains that, with respect to the contracting of marriage, slaves are not obliged to obey their masters (2a. 2, q. 104, art. 5). In the hasty sketch which I have given, I believe that I have kept the pro. mise which I made at the beginning, not to advance any proposition without supporting it by undeniable documents, and not to allow myself to be misled by enthusiasm in favor of Catholicity, so as to concede to it that to which it is not entitled. By passing, rapidly it is true, the course of ages, we have shown, by convincing proofs, which have been furnished by times and places the most various, that it was Catholicity that abolished slavery, in spite of ideas, manners, interests, and laws, which opposed obstacles apparently invincible; and that it has' done so without injustice, without violence, without revolutions,-with the most exquisite prudence and the most admirable moderation. We have seen the Catholic Church make so extensive, so varied, and so efficacious an attack on slavery, that that odious chain was broken without a single violent stroke. 15 K 2 114 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITI CATHOLICITY. Exposed to the action of the most powerful agents, it gradually relaxed and fell to pieces. Her proceedings may be thus recapitulated:First, she loudly teaches the truth concerning the dignity of man; she defines the obligations of masters and slaves; she declares them equal before God, and thus completely destroys the degrading theories which stain the writings even of the greatest philosophers of antiquity. She then comes to the application of her doctrines: she labors to improve the treatment of slaves; she struggles against the atrocious right of life and death; she opens her temples to them as asylums, and when they depart thence, prevents their being ill-treated; she labors to substitute public tribunals for private vengeance. At the same time that the Church guarantees the liberty of the enfranchised, by connecting it with religious motives, she defends that of those born fre'; she labors to close the sources of slavery, by displaying the most active zeal for the redemption of captives, by opposing the avarice of the Jews, by procuring for men who were sold, easy means of recovering their liberty. The Church gives an example of mildness and disinterestedness; she facilitates emancipation, by admitting slaves into monasteries and the ecclesiastical state; she facilitates it by all the other means that charity suggests; and thus it is that, in spite of the deep roots of slavery in ancient society-in spite of the perturbation caused by the irruptions of the barbarians-in spite of so many wars and calamities of every kind, which in great measure paralyzed the effect of all regulating and beneficent actionyet we see slavery, that dishonor and leprosy of ancient civilization, rapidly diminish among Christians, until it finally disappears. Surely in all this we do not discover a plan conceived and concerted by men. But we do observe therein, in the absence of that plan, such unity of tendencies, such a perfect identity -of views, and such similarity in the means, that we have the clearest demonstration of the civilizing and liberating spirit contained in Catholicity. Accurate observers will no doubt be gratified in beholding, in the picture which I have just exhibited, the admirable concord with which the period of the empire, that of the irruption of the barbarians, and that of feudality, all tended towards the same end. They will not regret the poor regularity which distinguishes the exclusive work of man; they will love, I repeat it, to collect all the facts scattered in the seeming disorder, from the forests of Germany to the fields of Boeotia-from the banks of the Thames to those of the Tiber. I have not invented these facts; I have pointed out the periods, and cited the Councils. The reader will find, at the end of the volume, in the original and in full, the texts of which I have just given an abstract-a rdsum: thus he may fully convince himself that I have'not deceived him. If such had been my intention, surely I should have avoided descending to the level ground of facts; I should have preferred the vague regions of theory; I should have called to my aid high sounding and seductive language, and all the means the most likely to enchant the imagination and excite the feelings; in fine, I should have placed myself in one of those positions where a writer can suppose at his pleasure things which have never existed, and made the best use of the resources of imagination and invention. The task which I have undertaken is rather more difficult, perhaps less brilliant, but certainly more useful. We may now inquire of M. Guizot what were the other causes, the other ideas, the other principles of civilization,' the great development of which, to avail myself of his words, was necessary "to abolish this evil of evils, this iniquity of iniquities." Ought he not to explain, or at least point out, these causes, ideas, and principles of. civilization, which, according to him, assisted the Church in the abolition of slavery, in order to save the reader the trouble of seeking or divining them?. If they did not arise in the bosom of the Church, where did they arise? Were they found in the ruins of ancient civilization? But could these remains of a scattered and almost annihilated civilization effect what that PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 115 same civilization, in all its vigor, power, and splendor, never did or thought of doing?-Were they in the individual indepencence of the barbarians. But that individuality, the inseparable companion of violence, must consequently have been the source of oppression and slavery. Were they found in the military patronage introduced, according to M. Guizot, by the barbarians themselves; patronage which laid the foundation of that aristocratical organization which was converted at a later period into feudality? But what could this patronage -an institution likely, on the contrary, to perpetuate slavery among the indigent'in conquered countries, and to extend it to a considerable portion of the conquerors themselves-what could this patronage do for the abolition of slavery? Where, then, is the idea, the custom, the institution, which, born out of Christianity, contributed to the abolition of slavery? Let any one point out to us the epoch of its formation, the time of its development; let him show us that it had not its origin in Christianity, and we will then confess that the latter cannot exclusively lay claim to the glorious title of having abolished that degraded condition; and he may be sure that this shall not prevent our exalting that idea, custom, or institution which took part in the great and noble enterprise of liberating the human race. We may be allowed, in conclusion, to inquire of the Protestant churches, of those ungrateful daughters who, after having quitted the bosom of their mother, attempt to calumniate and dishonor her, where were you when the Catholic Church accomplished in Europe the immense work of the abolition of slavery? and how can you venture to reproach her with sympathizing with servitude, degrading man, and usurping his rights? Can you, then, present any such claim entitling you to the gratitude of the human race? What part can you claim in that great work which prepared the way for the development and grandeur of European civilization? Catholicity alone, without your concurrence, completed the work; and she alone would have conducted Europe to its lofty destinies, if. you had not come to interrupt the majestic march of its mighty nations, by urging them into a path bordered by precipices,-a path the end of which is concealed by darkness which the eye of God alone can pierce. (15) CHAPTER XX. CONTRAST BETWEEN TWO ORDERS OF CIVILIZATION. WE have seen that European civilization owes to the Catholic Church its finest ornament, its most valuable victory in the cause of humanity, the abolition of slavery. It was the Church that, by her doctrines, as beneficent as elevated, by a system as efficacious as prudent, by her unbounded generosity, her indefatigable zeal, her invincible firmness, abolished slavery in Europe; that is to say, she took the first step towards the regeneration of humanity, and laid the first stone for the wide and deep foundation of European civilization; we mean the emancipation of slaves, the abolition for ever of so degrading a state, -universal liberty. It was.impossible to create and organize a civilization full of grandeur and dignity, without raising man from his state of abjection, and placing him above the level of animals. Whenever we see him crouching at another's feet, awaiting with anxiety the orders of his master or trembling at the lash; whenever he is sold like a beast, or a price is set upon his powers and his life, civilization will never have its proper development, it will always be weak, sickly, and broken; for thus humanity bears a mark of ignominy on its forehead. After having shown that it was Catholicity that removed that obstacle to all social progress, by, as it were, cleansing Europe of the disgusting leprosy with 116 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. which it was infected from head to foot, let us examine what it has done towards creating and erecting the magnificent edifice of European civilization. If we seriously reflect on the vitality and fruitfulness of this civilization, we shall find therein new and powerful claims on the part of the Catholic Church to the gratitude of nations. In the first place, it is proper to glance at the vast and interesting picture which European civilization presents to us, and to sum up in a few words its principal perfections; thereby we shall be enabled the more easily to account to ourselves for the admiration and enthusiasm with which it inspires us. The individual animated by, lively sense of his own dignity, abounding in activity, perseverance, energy, and the simultaneous development of all his faculties; woman elevated to the rank of the consort of man, and, as it were, recompensed for the duty of obedience by the respectful regards lavished upon her; the gentleness and constancy of family ties, protected by the.powerful guarantees of good order and justice; an admirable public conscience, rich in maxims of sublime morality, in laws of justice and equity, in sentiments of honor and dignity; a conscience which survives the shipwreck of private morality, and does not allow unblushing corruption to reach the height which it did in antiquity; a general mildness of manners, which in war prevents great excesses, and in peace renders life more tranquil and pleasing; a profound respect for man, and all that belongs to him, which makes private acts of violence very uncommon, and in all political constitutions serves as a salutary check on governments; an ardent desire of perfection in all departments; an irresistible tendency, sometimes ill-directed, but always active, to improve the condition of the many; a secret impulse to protect the weak, to succour the unfortunate-an impulse which sometimes pursues its course with generous ardor, and which, whenever it is unable to develop itself, remains in the heart of society, and produces there the uneasiness and disquietude of remorse; a cosmopolitan spirit of universality, of propagandism, an inexhaustible fund of resources to grow young again without danger of perishing, and for self-preservation in the most important junctures; a generous impatience, which longs to anticipate the future, and produces an incessant movement and agitation, sometimes dangerous, but which are generally the. germs of great benefits, and the symptoms of a strong principle of life; such are the great characteristics which distinguish European civilization; such are the features which place it in a rank immensely superior to that of all other civilizations, ancient and modern. Read the history of antiquity; extend your view over the whole world; wherever Christianity does not reign, and where the barbarous or savage life no longer prevails, you will find a civilization which in nothing resembles our own, and which cannot be compared with it for a moment. In some of these states of civilization, you will perhaps find a certain degree of regularity and some marks of power, for they have endured for centuries; but how have they endured? Without movement, without progress; they are devoid of life; their regularity and duration are those of a nlarble statue, which, motionless itself, sees the waves of generations pass by. There have also been nations whose civilization displayed motion and activity; but what motion and what activity? Some, ruled by the mercantile spirit, never succeeded in establishing their internal happiness on a firm basis; their only object was to invade new countries which tempted their cupidity, to pour into their colonies their superabundant population, and establish numerous factories in new lands: others, continually contending and fighting for a few measures of political freedom, forgot their social organization, took no care of their civil liberty, and acted in the narrowest circle of time and space; they would not be even worthy of having their names preserved for posterity, if the genius of the beautiful had not shone there with indescribable charm, and if the monuments of their knowledge, like a PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 117 mirror, had not preserved the bright rays of Eastern learning: others, great and terrible, it is true, but troubled by intestine dissensions, bear inscribed upon their front the formidable destiny of conquest; this destiny they fulfilled by subjugating the world, and immediately their rapid and inevitable ruin aporoached: others, in fine, excited by violent fanaticism, raged like the waves of ocean in a storm; they threw themselves upon other nations like a devastating torrent, and threatened to involve Christian civilization itself in their deafening uproar; but their efforts were vain; their waves broke against insurmountable carriers; they repeated their attempts, but, always compelled to retire, they fell back again, and spread themselves on the beach with a sullen roar: and now look at the.Eastern nations; behold them like an impure pool, which the heat of the sun is about to dry up; see the sons and successors of Mahomet and Omar on their knees at the feet of the European powers, begging a protection, which policy sometimes affords them, but only with disdain. Such is the picture presented to us by every civilization, ancient and modern, except that of Europe, that is, the Christian. It alone at once embraces every thing great and noble in the others; it alone survives the most thorough revolutions; it alone extends itself to all races and climates, and accommodates itself to forms of government the most various; it alone, in fine, unites itself with all kinds of institutions, whenever, by circulating in them its fertile sap, it can produce its sweet and salutary fruits for the good of humanity. And whence comes the immense superiority of European civilization over all others? How has it become so noble, so rich, so varied, so fruitful; with the stamp of dignity, of nobility, and of loftiness; without castes, without slaves, without eunuchs, without any of those miseries which prey upon other ancient and modern nations? It often happens that we Europeans complain and lament more than the most unfortunate portion of the human race ever did; and we forget that we are the privileged children of Providence, and that our evils, our share of the unavoidable patrimony of humanity, are very slight, are nothing in comparison with those which have been, and still are, suffered by other nations. Even the extent of our good fortune itself renders us difficult to please, and exceedingly fastidious. We are like a man of high rank, accustomed to live respected and esteemed in the midst of ease and pleasure, who is indignant at a slighting word, is filled with disquietude and affliction at the most trifling contradiction, and forgets the multitude of men who are plunged in misery, whose nakedness is covered with a few rags, and who meet with a thousand insults and refusals before they can obtain a morsel of bread to satisfy the cravings of hunger. The mind, when contemplating European civilization, experiences so many different impressions, is attracted by so many objects that at the same time claim its attention and preference, that, charmed by the magnificent spectacle, it is dazzled, and knows not where to commence the examination. The best way in such a case is to simplify, to decompose the complex object, and reduce it to its simplest elements. The individual, the fatmily, and society; these we have thoroughly to examine, and these ought to be the subjects of our inquiries. If we succeed in fully understanding these three elements, as they really are in themselves, and apart from the slight variations which do not affect their essence, European civilization, with all its riches and all its secrets, will be presented to our view, like a fertile and beautiful landscape lit up by the morning sun. European civilization is in possession of the principal truths with respect to the individual, to the family, and to society; it is to this that it owes all that it is and all that it has. Nowhere have the true nature, the true relations and object of these three things been better understood than in Europe; with respect to them we have ideas. sentiments, and views which have been wanting in other civilizations. Now, these ideas and fee lings, strongly marked on the face of 118 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATIIOLICITY. European nations, have inoculated their laws, manners, institutions, customs, and language; they are inhaled with the air, for they have impregnated the whole atmosphere with their vivifying aroma. To what is this owing? To the fact, that Europe, for many centuries, has had within its bosom a powerful principle which preserves, propagates, and fructifies the truth; and it was especially in those times of difficulty, when the disorganized society had to assume a new form, that this regenerating principle had the greatest influence and ascendency. Time has passed away, great changes have taken place, Catholicity has undergone vast vicissitudes in its power and influence on society; but civilization, its work, was too strong to be easily destroyed; the impulse which had been given to Europe was too powerful and well secured to be easily diverted from its course. Europe was like a young man gifted with a strong constitution, and full of health and vigor; the excesses of labor or of dissipation reduce him and make him grow pale; but soon the hue of health returns to his countenance, and his limbs recover their suppleness and vigor. CHAPTER XXI. OF THE INDIVIDUAL-OF THE FEELING OF INDIVIDUAL INDEPENDENCE ACCORDING TO M. GUIZOT. THE individual is the first and simplest element of society. If the individual is not well constituted, if he is ill understood and ill appreciated, there will always be an obstacle to the progress of real civilization. First of all, we must observe, that we speak here only of the individual, of man as he is in himself, apart from the numerous relations which surround him when we come to consider him as a member of society. But let it not be imagined from this, that I wish to consider him in a state of absolute isolation, to carry him to the desert, to reduce him to the savage state, and analyze the individuality as it appears to us in a few wandering hordes, a monstrous exception, which is only the result of the degradation of our nature. Equally useless would it be to revive the theory, of Rousseau, that pure Utopianism which can only lead to error and extravagance. We may separately examine the pieces of a machine, for the better understanding of its particular construction; but we must take care not to forget the purpose for which they are intended, and not lose sight of the whole, of which they form a part. Without that, the judgment we should form of them would certainly be erroneous. The most wonderful and sublime picture would be only a ridiculous monstrosity, if its groups and figures were considered in a state of isolation from its other parts; in this way, the prodigies of Michael Angelo and Raffael might be taken for the dreams'of a madman. Man is not alone in the world, nor' is he born to live alone. Besides what is he in himself, he is a part of the great scheme of the Universe. Besides the destiny which belongs to him in the vast plan of creation, he is raised, by the bounty of his Maker, to another sphere, above all earthly thoughts. Good philosophy requires that we should forget nothing of all this. It now remains for us to consider the individual and individuality. In considering man, we may abstract from his quality of citizen,-an abstraction which, far from leading to any extravagant paradoxes, is likely to make us thoroughly understand a remarkable peculiarity of European civilization, one of the distinctive characteristics, which will be alone sufficient to enable us to aivoid confounding it with others. All will readily understand that there is a distinction to be made between the man and the citizen, and that these two aspects lead to very different considerations; but it is more difficult to say how far the limits of this distinction should extend; to what extent the feeling of PROTEST MNTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 119 independence should bo admitted; what is the sphere which ought to be assigned L0 purely individual development; in fine, whatever is peculiar to our civilization on this point. We must justly estimate the difference which we find herein between our state of society and that of others; we must point out its source, and its result; we must carefully weigh its real influence on the advance of civilization. This task is difficult; I repeat it,-for we have here various ques. tions, great and important, it is true, but delicate and profound, and very easily mistaken,-it is not without much trouble that we can fix our eyes with certainty on these vague, indeterminate, and floating objects, which are connected together by no perceptible ties. We here meet with the famous personal independence, which, according to M. Guizot, was brought by the barbarians from the North, and played so important a part, that we ought to look upon it as one of the chief and most productive principles of European civilization. This celebrated publicist, analyzing the elements of this civilization, and pointing out the share which the Roman empire and the Chutch had therein, in his opinion, finds a remarkable principle of productiveness in the feeling of individuality, which the Germans brought with them, and inoculated into the manners of Europe. It will not be useless to discuss the opinion of M. Guizot on this important and delicate matter. By thus explaining th'. state of the question, we shall remove the important errors of some persorn, errors produced by the authority of this writer, whose talent and eloquence have unfortunately given plausibility and semblance of truth to what is in reality only a paradox. The first care we ought to take, in combating the opinions of this writer, is not to attribute to him what he has not really said; besides, as the matter we are treating of is liable to many mistakes, we shall do well to transcribe the words of M. Guizot at length. " What we require to know," he says, " is the general condition of society among the barbarians. Now it is very difficult, now-a-days, to give an account of it. We can understand, without too much trouble, the municipal system of Rome, and the Christian Church; their influence has continued down to our times; we find traces of them in many institutions and existing facts. We have a thousand means of recognising and explaining them. The manners, the social condition of the barbarians, have entirely perished; we are compelled to divine them, by the most ancient historical documents, or by an efforjt of imagination." What has been preserved to us of the manners of the barbarians is, indeed, little; this is an assertion which I will not deny. I will not dispute with M. Guizot about the authority which ought to belong to facts which require to be filled up by an effort of the imagination, and which compel us to have recourse to the dangerous expedient of divining. As for the rest, I am aware of the nature of these questions; and the reflections which I have just made, as well as the terms which I have used, prove that I do not think it possible to proceed with rule and compass in such an examination. Nevertheless, I have thought it proper to warn the reader on this point, and combat the delusion into which he might be led by a doctrine which, when fully examined, is, I repeat it, only a brilliant paradox. "There is a feeling, a fact," continues M. Guizot, which it istbove all necessary to understand well, in order to represent to ourselves with truth what a barbarian was: this is, the pleasure of individual independence-the pleasure of playing amid the chances of the world and of life, with power and liberty; the joys of activity without labor; the taste for an adventurous destiny, full of surprises, vicissitudes, and perils. Such was the ruling feeling of the barbarian state, the moral necessity which put these masses or men in motion. To-day, in the regular society in which we live, it is difficult to represent to one's self this feeling, with all the influence which it exercised over the barbarians of the fourth and fifth centuries. There is only one work, in my opinion, in which this character of barbarism is described with all its 120 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. force, viz. The History.of the Conquest of England ly the Normans,'f M Thierry-the only book where the motives, the inclinations, the impulses which actuate man in a social state bordering on barbarism, are felt and described with a truth really Homeric. Nowhere do we see so clearly what a barbarian was, and what was his life. We also find something of this, although in a very inferior degree, in my opinion, in a manner much less simple, much less true, in the romances of Mr Cooper on the American savages. There is in the life of the savages of America, in the relations and feelings which exist in those forests, something which reminds one, to a certain extent, of the manners of the ancient Germans. No doubt these pictures are a little ideal, a little poetical; the unfavorable side of barbarian life and manners is not displayed in all its crudity. I do not speak merely of the evils which these manners produce in the individual social condition of the barbarian himself. In this passionate love of personal independence, there was something more rude and coarse than one would imagine from the work of M. Thierry; there was a degree of brutality, of indo lence, of apathy, which is not always faithfully described in his pictures Nevertheless, when one examines the thing to the bottom, in spite of brutality, coarseness, and this stupid e(otism, the taste for individual independence is a noble moral feeling, which draws its power from.the moral nature of man: it is the pleasure of feeling himself a man-the sentiment of personality, of spontaneous action in his free development. Gentlemen, it was by the German barbarians that this feeling was introduced into the civilization of Europe; it was unknown to the Roman world, unknown to the Christian Church, unknown to almost all the ancient civilizations:-when you find liberty in the ancient civilizations, it is political liberty, the liberty of the citizen. It is not with his personal liberty that the man is prepossessed, but with his liberty as a citizen. He belongs to an association-he is devoted to an association-he is ready to sacrifice himself for an association. It was the same with the Christian Church: there prevailed a feeling of great attachment to the Christian corporation-of devotion to its laws-a strong desire of extending its empire; the religious feel: ing produced a reaction on the man himself-on his soul-an internal struggle to subdue his own will, and make it submit to the demands of his faith. But the feeling of personal independence, the taste for liberty showing itself at any hazard, with hardly any other object than its own satisfaction-this feeling, I repeat, was unknown to the Roman and Christian society.. It was brought in by the barbarians, and placed in the cradle of modern civilization. It has played so great a part, it has produced such noble results, that it is impossible not to bring it to light as one of the fundamental elements thereof." (IHistoire Gen1rale de la Civilisation en Europe, legon 2.) This feeling of personal independence, exclusively attributed to a nation-this vague, undefinable feelinga singular mixture of nobleness and brutality, of barbarism and civilization-is in some degree poetical, and is very likely to seduce the fancy; but, unfortunately, there is in the contrast, intended to increase the effect of the picture, something extraordinary, I will even say contradictory, which excites the suspicion of cool reason that there is some hidden error which compels it to be on its guard. If it be true that this phenomenon ever existed, what was its origin? Will it be said that it was the result of climate? But how can it be imagined that the snows of the north protected what was not found in the ardent south? How comes it that the feeling of personal independence was wanting precisely in those southern countries of Europe, where the feeling of political independence was developed with so much force? and would it not be a strange thing, not to say an absurdity, if these different climates had divided these two kinds of liberty between them, like an inheritance? It will be said, perhaps, that this feeling arose from the social state. But in that case, it cannot be made the characteristic mark of one nation: it must be said, in general terms, that PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 121 the feeling belonged to all the nations who were in the same social condition as the Germans. Besides, even according to this hypothesis, how could that which was peculiar to barbarism have been a germ, a fruitful principle of civilization? This feeling, which must have been effaced by civilization, could not even pre. serve itself in the midst thereof, much less contribute to its development. If its perpetuation in some form was absolutely necessary, why did not the same thing take place in the bosom of other civilizations? Surely the Germans were not the only people who passed from barbarism to civilization. But I do not pretend to say that the barbarians of the north did not present some remarkable peculiarity in this point of view; and I do not deny that we find in European civilization a feeling of personality, if I may so speak, unknown to other civilizations. But what I venture to affirm is, that it is little philosophical to have recourse to mysteries and enigmas to explain the izndividuality of the Germans, and that it is useless to seek in their barbarism the cause of the superiority which European civilization possesses in this respect. To form a clear idea of this question, which is as complicated as it is important, it is first of all necessary to specify, in the best way we can, the real nature of the barbarian individuality. In a pamphlet which I published some time ago, called Observations Socials, Politiques, et Economiques, sur les Biens du Clerge, I have incidentally touched upon this individuality, and attempted to give clear ideas on this point. As I have not changed my opinion,since that time, but, on the contrary, as it has been confirmed, I will transcribe what I then said, as follows: "What was this feeling? Was it peculiar to those nations? Was it the result of the influence of climate, of a social position? Was it perchance a feeling formed in all places and at all times, but which is here modified by particular circumstances? What was its force, its tendency? How far was it just or unjust, noble or degrading, profitable or injurious? What benefits did it confer on society; what evils? How were these evils combated, by whom, by what means, and with what result? These questions are numerous, but they are not so complicated as they appear at first sight; when once the fundamental idea shall be cleared up, the others will be understood without difficulty, and the theory, when simplified, will immediately be confirmed and supported by history. There is a strong, active, an indestructible feeling in the human heart which urges men to self-preservation, to avoid evils, and to attain to their well-being and happiness. Whether you call it self-love, instinct of preservation, desire of happiness or of perfection, egotism, individuality, or whatever name you give to it, this feeling exists; we have it within us. We cannot doubt of its existence; it accompanies us at every step, in all our actions, from the time when we first see the light till we descend into the tomb. This feeling, if you will observe its origin, its nature, and its object, is nothing but a great law of all beings applied to man; a law which, being a guarantee for the preservation and perfecting of individuals, admirably contributes to the harmony of the universe. It is clear that such a feeling must naturally incline us to hate oppression, and to suffer with impatience what tends to limit and fetter the use of our faculties. The cause is easily found; all this gives us uneasiness, to which our nature is repugnant; even the tenderest infant bears with impatience the tie that fastens him in his cradle; he is uneasy, he is disturbed, he cries. "On the other hand, the individual, when he is not totally devoid of knowledge of himself, when his intellectual faculties are at all developed, will feel another sentiment arise in his mind whidh has nothing in common with the instinct of self-preservation with which all beings are animated, a sentiment which belongs exclusiveiy to intelligence; I mean, the feeling of dignity, of value of ourselves, of that fire which, enkindled itl our hearts in our earliest years is nourished, extended, and supported by the aliment afforded to it by t?#e, mild acquires that immense power, that expansion which makes us so rest' A6 L 122 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. less, active, and agitated during all periods of our life. The subjection of one man to another wounds this feeling of dignity; for even supposing it to be reconciled with all possible freedom and mildness, with the most perfect respect for the person subjected, this subjection reveals a weakness or a necessity which compels him in some degree to limit the free use of his faculties. Such is the second origin of the feeling of personal independence. It follows from what I have just said, that man always bears within himself a certain love of inde. pendence, that this feeling is necessarily common to all times and countries, for we have found its roots in the two most natural feelings of man-viz. the desire of well-being and the consciousness of his own dignity. It is evident that these feelings may be modified and varied indefinitely, on account of the infinity of situations in which the individual may be placed, morally and physically. Without leaving the sphere which is marked out for them by their very essence, these feelings may vary as to. strength or weakness on the most extensive scale; they may be moral or immoral, just or. unjust, noble or vile, advantageous or injurious. Consequently they may contribute to the individual the greatest variety of inclinations, of habits, of manners; and thereby give very different features to the physiognomy of nations, according to the particular and characteristic manner in which they affect the individual. These notions being once cleared up by a real knowledge of the constitution of the heart of man, we see how all questions which relate to the feeling of individuality must be resolved; we also see that it is useless to have recourse to mysterious language or poetical explanations, for in all this there is nothing that can be submitted to a rigorous analysis. The ideas which man forms of his own well-being and dignity, the means which he employs to promote the one and preserve the other, these are what will settle the degrees of energy, will determine the nature and signalize the tendency of all these feelings; that is to say, all will depend on the physical and moral state of society and the individual. Now, supposing all other circumstances to be equal, give a man true ideas of his own well-being and dignity, such as reason and above all the Christian religion teach, and you will form a. good citizen; give false, exaggerated, absurd ideas, such as are entertained by perverted schools and promulgated by agitators at all times and in all countries, and you spread the fruitful seeds of disturbance and disorder. "In order to complete the clearing up of the important point which we have undertaken to explain, we must apply this doctrine to the particular fact which now occupies us. If we fix our attention on the nations who invaded and overturned the Roman empire, confining ourselves to the facts which history has preserved of them, to the conjectures which are authorized by the circumstances in which they were placed, and to the general data which modern science has been able to collect from the immediate observation of the different tribes of America, we shall be able to form an idea of what was the state of society and of the individual among the invading barbarians. In their native countries, among their mountains, in their forests covered with frost and snow, they had their family ties, their relationships, their religion, traditions, customs, manners, attachment to their hereditary soil, their love of national independence, their enthusiasm for the great deeds of their ancestors, and for the glory acquired in battle; in fine, their desire of perpetuating in their children a race strong., valiant, and free; they had their distinctions of family, their division into tribes, their priests, chiefs, and government. Without discussing the character of their forms of government, and laying aside all that might be said of their monarchy, their public assemblies, and other similar points, questions which, are foreign to our subject, and which besides are always in some degree hypothetical and imaginary, I shall content myself with making a remark which none of my readers will deny, viz. that among them the organization of society was such as might have been expected from rude and superstitious ideas, gross habits, and PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 128 ferocious manners; that is to say, that their social condition did not rise above the level which had naturally been marked out for it by two imperious necessities: first, that complete anarchy should not prevail in their forests; and second, that in war they should have some one to lead their confused hordes. Born in rigorous climates, crowding on each other by their rapid increase, and on that account obtaining with difficulty even the means of subsistence, these nations saw before their eyes the abundance and the luxuries of ample and well-culti. vated regions; they were at the same time urged on by extreme want, and strongly excited by the presence of plunder. There was nothing to oppose them but the feeble legions of an effeminate and decaying civilization; their own bodies were strong, their minds full of courage and audacity; their numbers augmented their boldness; they left their native soil without pain; a spirit of adventure and enterprise developed itself in their minds, and they threw themselves on the Empire like a torrent which falls from the mountains, and inundates the neighboring plains. However imperfect was their social condition, and however rude were its ties, it sufficed, nevertheless, in their native soil, and amid their ancient manners; if the barbarians had remained in their forests, it may be said that that form of government, which answered its purpose in its way, would have been perpetuated; for it was born of necessity, it was adapted to circumstances, it was rooted in their habits, sanctioned by time, and connected with traditions and recollections of every kind. But these ties were too weak to be transported without being broken. These forms of government were, as we have just seen, so suited to the state of barbarism, and consequently so circumscribed and limited, that they could not be applied without difficulty to the new situation in which these nations found themselves almost suddenly placed. Let us imagine these savage children of the forest precipitated on the south; their fierce chiefs precede them, and they are followed by crowds of women and children; they take with them their flocks and rude baggage; they cut to pieces numerous legions on their way; they form,intrenchments, cross ditches, scale ramparts, ravage the country, destroy forests, burn populous cities, and take with them immense numbers of slaves captured on the way. They overturn every thing that opposes their fury, and drive before them multitudes who flee to avoid fire and sword. In a short time see these same men, elated with victory, enriched by immense booty, inured by so many battles, fires, sackings, and massacres, transported, as if by enchantment, into a new climate, under another sky, and swimming in abundance, in pleasure, in new enjoyments of every kind. A. confused mixture of idolatry and Christianity, of truth and falsehood, is become their religion; their principal chiefs are dead in battle; families are confounded in disorder, races mixed, old manners and customs altered and lost. These nations, in fine, are spread over immense countries, in the midst of other nations, differing in language, ideas, manners, and usages; imagine, if you can, this disorder, this confusion, this chaos, and tell me whether the ties which formed the society of these nations are not destroyed and broken into a thousand pieces, and whether you do not see barbarian and civilized society disappear together, and all antiquity vanish without any thing new taking its place? And at this moment, fix your eyes upon the gloomy child of the North, when he feels all the ties that bound him to society suddenly loosened, when all the chains that restrained his ferocity break; when he finds himself alone, isolated, in a position so new, so singular, so extraordinary, with an obscure recollection of his late country and without affection for that which he has just occupied; without respect for law, fear of man, or attachment to custom. Do you not see him, in his impetuous ferocity, indulge without limit his habits of violence, wandering, plunder, and massacre? He confides in his strong arm and activity of foot, and led by a heart full of fire and courage, by an imagination excited by the view of so many different countries and by the hazards of so many travels 124 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. and combats, he rashly undertakes all enterprises, rejects all subjection, Jhrowv off all restraint, and delights in the dangers of fresh struggles and adventures. Do you not find here the mysterious individuality, the feeling of personal independence, in all its philosophical reality and all the truth which is assigned to it by history? This brutal individuality, this fierce feeling of independence, which was not reconcileable with the well-being or with the true dignity of the individual, contained a principle of eternal war and a continually wandering mode of life, and must necessarily produce the degradation of man and the complete dissolution of society. Far from containing the germ of civilization, it was this that was best adapted to reduce Europe to the savage state; it stifled society in its cradle; it destroyed every attempt made to reorganize it, and completed the annihilation of all that remained of the ancient civilization." The observations which have just been made may be more or less well founded, more or less happy, but at least they do not present the inexplicable inconsistency, not to say contradiction; of allying barbarism and brutality with civilization and refinement; they do not give the name of an eminent and fruitful principle of European civilization to that which a little further on is pointed out as one of the strongest obstacles to the progress of social organization. As M. Guizot, on this last point, agrees with the opinion which I have just stated, and shows the incoherence of his own doctrines, the reader will allow me to quote his own words. "It is clear," he says, "that if men have no ideas extending beyond their own existence, if their intellectual horizon is limited P themselves, if they give themselves up to the caprices of their own passions and wills, if they have not among them a certain number of common notions and feelings, around which they rally; it is clear, I say, that no society can be possible among them; that such individual, when he enters into any association, will be a principle of disturbance and dissolution. Whenever individuality almost absolutely prevails, or man only considers himself, or his ideas do not extend beyond himself, or he obeys only his own passions, society, I mean one with any thing of extent or permanency, becomes almost impossible. Now such was the moral condition of the conquerors of Europe at the period of which we speak. I have pointed out, in the last lecture, that we owe the energetic feeling of individual liberty and humanity to the Germans. Now, in a state of extreme rudeness and ignorance, this feeling is egotism in all its brutality, in all its unsociability. From the fifth to the eighth century, such was the case among the Germans. They consulted only their own interests, their own passions, their own wills; how could this accord with the social state? It was attempted to make them enter it; they attempted it themselves; they soon left it from some sudden act, some sally of passion or misunderstanding. Every moment we see society attempted to be formed; every moment we see it broken by the act of man, by the want of the moral conditions necessary for its subsistence. Such, gentlemen, were the two prevailing causes of the state of barbarism. As long as they lasted, barbarism continued." (IIistoire Gendrale de la Civilisation e~ Europe, legon 3.) With respect to his theory of ind;viduality, M. Guizot has met with the common fate of men of great talents. They are forcibly struck by a singular phenomenon, they conceive an ardent desire of finding its cause, and they fall into frequent errors, led away by a secret tendency always to point out a new, unexpected, astonishing origin. In his vast and penetrating view of European civilization, in his parallel between this and the most distinguished ones of antiquity, he discovered a very remarkable difference between the individuals of the former and of the latter. He saw in the man of modern Europe, something nobler, more independent than in the Greek or Roman; it was necessary to point- out the origin of this difference. Now this was not an easy task, considering the peculiar situation in which the philosophical historian found himself. From PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 125 the first glance which he took at the elements of European civilization, the Church presented herself to him as one of the most powerful and the most influential agents on the organization of society; ands'he saw issue from her the impulse which was most capable of leading the world to a great and happy future. He had already expressly acknowledged this, and had paid homage to the truth in magnificent language; in order to explain this phenomenon, should he again have recourse to Christianity, to the Church? This would have'been conceding to her the whole of the great work of civilization; and M. Guizot was desirous, at all hazards, of giving her coadjutors. Therefore, fixing his eyes upon the barbarian hordes, he expects to discover in the swarthy brows, the savage countenances, and the menacing looks of these children of the forest, a type, somewhat rude but still very just, of the noble independence, the elevation, and dignity which the European bears in his features. After having explained the mysterious personality of the Germans, and shown that, far from being an element of civilization, it was a source of disorder and barbarism; it is besides necessary to examine the difference which exists between the civilization of Europe and other civilizations, with respect to the feeling of dignity; it is necessary to determine with precision what modifications have been undergone by a feeling, which, considered by itself, is, as we have seen, common to all men. In the first place, there is no foundation for this assertion of M. Guizot, that the feelinq of personal independence, the taste for liberty, displaying itself at all hazards, with scarcely any other olject than its own satisfaction, was unknown to Roman society. It is clear that in such a comparison, it is not meant to allude to the feeling of independence in the savage state, in the state of barbarism; for as well might it be said that civilized nations could not have the distinctive character of barbarism. But laying aside that circumstance of ferocity, we will say that the feeling was very active, not only among the Romans, but also among the other most celebrated nations of antiquity. " When you find in ancient civilization," says M. Guizot, " liberty, it is political liberty, the liberty of the citizen. It is not with his personal liberty that the man is prepossessed, it is with his liberty as a citizen; he belongs to an association, he is devoted to an association, he is ready to sacrifice himself for an association." I will not deny that this spirit of sacrifice for the benefit of an association did exist among ancient nations; I acknowledge also that it was accompanied by remarkable peculiarities, which I intend to explain further on; yet it may be doubted whether the taste for liberty, with scarcely any other object than its own sati/sfaction, was not more active with ancient nations than with us. Indeed, what was the object of the Phoenicians, the Greeks of the Archipelago and of Asia Minor, the Carthaginians, when they undertook those voyages which, for such remote times, were as bold and perilous as those of our most intrepid sailors? Was it, indeed, to sacrifice themselves for an association that they sought new territories with so much ardour, in order to amass there money, gold, and all kinds of articles of value? Were they not led by the desire of acquiring to gratify themselves? Where, then, is the association? Where do you find it here? Do you see any thing but the individual, with his passions and tastes, and his ardour in satisfying them? And the Greeks-those Greeks so enervated, so voluptuous, so spoiled by pleasures, had' they not the most lively feeling of personal independence, the most ardent desire of living with perfect freedom, with no other object but to gratify themselves? Their poets singing of nectar and of love; their free courtesans receiving the homage of the most illustrious citizens, and making sages forget their philosophical moderation and gravity; and the people celebrating their festivals amid the most fearful dissoluteness; did they also only sacrifice on the altars of association? Had they not the desire of gratifying themselves? With respect to the Romans, perhaps it would not be so easy to demonstrate this, if L 2 126 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. we had to speak of what are called the glorious times of the Republic; but we have to deal with the Romans of the empire, with those who lived at the time of the irruption of the barbarians; with those Romans, greedy of pleasures, and devoured by that thirst for excess of which history has preserved such shameful pictures. Their superb palaces, their magnificent villas, their delicious baths, their splendid festive halls, their tables loaded with riches, their effeminate dresses, their voluptuous dissipation; do they not show us individuals who, without thinking of the association to which they belonged, only thought of gratifying their own passions and caprices; lived in the greatest luxury, with every delicacy and all imaginable splendour; had no care but to enjoy society, to lull themselves asleep in pleasure, to gratify all their passions, and give way to' a burning love of their own satisfactions and amusements? It is not easy, then, to imagine why M. Guizot exclusively attributes to the barbarians the pleasure of feeling themselves men, the feelingy of personality, of human spontaneousness il its free development. Can we believe that such sentiments were unknown to the victors of Marathon and Plateea, to those nations who have immortalized their names by so many monuments? When, in the fine arts, in the sciences, in eloquence, in poetry, the noblest traits of genius shone forth on all sides, had they not among them the pleasure of feeling themselves men, the feeling and the' power of the free development of all their faculties? and in a society where glory was so passionately loved, as we see it was among the Romans, in a society which shows us men like Cicero and Virgil, and which produced a Tacitus, who still, after nineteen centuries, makes every generous heart thrill with emotion, was there no pleasure in feeling themselves men, no pride in appreciating their own dignity? Was there no feelinyg of the spontaneousness of man in his own free development? How can we imagine that the barbarians of the north surpassed the Greeks and Romans in this respect? Why, then, these paradoxes, this confusion of ideas? Of what avail are these brilliant expressions meaning nothing? Of what use are these observations, of a false delicacy, where the mind at first sight discovers vagueness and inexactitude; and where it finds, after a complete examination, nothing but incoherency and revery? CHAPTER XXII. HOW THE INDIVIDUAL WAS ABSORBED BY ANCIENT SOCIETY. 1F we profoundly study this question, without suffering ourselves to be led into error and extravagance, by the desire of passing for deep observers; if we call to our aid a just and cool philosophy, supported by the facts of history, we shall see that the principal difference between the ancient civilizations and our own with respect to the individual is, that, in antiquity, man, considered as man, was not properly esteemed. Ancient nations did not want either the feeling of personal independence, or the pleasure of feeling themselves men the fault was not in the heart, but in the head. What they wanted was the comprehension of the dignity of man; the high idea which Christianity has given us of ourselves, while, at the same time, with admirable wisdom, it has shown us our infirmities. What ancient societies wanted, what all those, where Christianity does not prevail, have wanted, and will continue to vwant, is the respect and the consideration which surround every individual, every man, inasmuch as te is a man. Among the Greeks the Greeks are every thing; strangers, barbarians, are nothing: in Rome, the title of Roman citizen makes the man; he who wants this is nothing. In Christian countries, the infant who is born:leformed, or deprived of some member, excites compassion, and becomes an PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 127 object of the tenderest solicitude; it is enough that he is man, and unfortunate, Among the ancients, this human being was regarded as useless and contemptible; in certain cities, as for example at Lacedvemon, it was forbidden to nourish him. and, by command of the magistrates charged with the regulation of births, horrible to relate! he was thrown into a ditch. He was a human being; but what matter? He was a human being who would be of no use; and society, without compassion, did not wish to undertake the charge of his support. If you read Plato and Aristotle, you will see the horrible doctrine which they professed on the subject of abortion and infanticide; you will see the means which these philosophers imagined, in order to prevent the excess of population; and you will be sensible of the immense progress which society has made, under the influence of Christianity, in all that relates to man. Are not the public games, those horrible scenes where hundreds of men were slaughtered to amuse an inhuman multitude, an eloquent testimony to the little value attached to man, when he was sacrificed with so much barbarism for reasons so frivolous? The right of the strongest was exercised among the ancients in a horrible manner; and this is one of the causes to which must be attributed the state of annihilation, so to speak, in which we see the individual with respect to society. Society was strong, the individual was weak; society absorbed the individual, and arrogated to itself all imaginable rights over him; and if ever he made opposition' to society, he was sure to be crushed by it with an iron hand. When we read the explanation which M. Guizot gives us of this peculiarity of ancient civilizations, we might suppose that there existed among them a patriotism unknown to us; a patriotism which, carried to exaggeration, and stripped of the feeling of personal independence, produced a kind of annihilation of the individual in presence of society. If he had reflected deeply on the matter, M. Guizot would have seen that the difference is not in the feelings of antiquity, but in the immense fundamental revolution which has taken place in ideas; hence he would easily have concluded, that the difference observed in their feelings must have been owing to the differences in the ideas themselves. Indeed, it is not strange that the individual, seeing the little esteem in which he was held, and the unlimited power which society arrogated to itself over his independence and his life, (for it went so far as to grind him to powder, when he opposed it,) on his side formed an exaggerated idea of society and the public authority, so as to annihilate himself in his own heart before this fearful colossus. Far from considering himself as a member of an association the object of which was the safety and happiness of every individual, the benefits of which required from him some sacrifices in return, he regarded himself as a thing devoted to this association, and compelled, without hesitation, to offer himself as a holocaust on its altars. Such is the condition of man; when a power acts upon him, for a long time, unlimitedly, his indignation is excited against it, and he rejects it-with violence; or else he humbles, he debases, he annihilates himself before the strong influence which binds and prostrates him. Let us see if this be not the contrast which ancient societies constantly afford us; the blindest submission and annihilation on the one hand, and, on the other, the spirit of insubordination, of resistance, showing itself in terrible explosions. It is thus, and thus only, that it is possible to understand how societies, whose normal condition was confusion and agitation, present us with such astonishing examples as Leonidas with his three hundred Spartans perishing at Thermopylae, Saeyola thrusting his hand into the fire, Regulus returning to Carthage to suffer and die, and Marcus Curtius, all armed, leaping into the chasm which had opened in the midst of Rome. All these phenomena, which at first sight appear inexplicable, are explained when we compare them with what has taken place in the revolutions of modern times Terrible revolutions have thrown some nations into confusion; the struggle Q: 128 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. ideas and interests, inflaming their passions, has made them forget their true social relations, during intervals of greater or less duration. What has happened? At the same time that unlimited freedom was proclaimed, and the rights of individuals were incessantly extolled, there arose in the midst of society a cruel power, which, concentrating in its own hands all public authority, inflicted on them the severest blows. At such periods, when the formidable maxim of the ancients, the saluspopuli, that pretext for so many frightful attempts was in full force, there arose, on the other hand, that mad and fer'ocious patriotism which superficial men admire in the citizens of ancient republics. Some writers have lavished eulogiums on the ancients, and, above all, on the Romans. It seemed as if, to gratify their ardent wishes, modern civilization must be moulded according to the ancient. They made absurd attempts; they attacked the existing social system with unexampled violence; they labored to destroy, or at least to stifle, Christian ideas concerning the individual and society, and they sought their inspiration from the shades of the ancient Romans. It is remarkable that, during the short time that the attempt lasted, there were seen, as in ancient Rome, admirable traits of strength, of valor, of patriotism, in fearful contrast with cruelties and crimes without example. In the midst of a great and generous nation there appeared again, to affright the human race, the bloody spectres of Marius and Sylla; so true it is that man is everywhere the same, and that the same order of ideas in the end produces the same order of events. Let the Christian ideas disappear, let old ones regain their force, and you will see that the modern world will resemble the ancient one. Happily for humanity, this is impossible. All the attempts hitherto made to produce such a result have been necessarily of short continuance, and such will be the case in future. But the bloody page which these criminal attempts have left in history offers an abundant subject for reflection to the philosopher who desires to become thoroughly acquainted with the intimate and delicate relations between ideas and facts. There he will see fully exhibited the vast scheme of social organization, and he will be able to appreciate at its just value the beneficial or injurious influence of the various religious and the different philosophical systems. The periods of revolutions, that is to say, those stormy times when governments are swallowed up one after another like edifices built upon a volcanic soil, have all this distinctive character, the tyranny of the interests of public authority over private interests. Never is this power feebler, or less lasting; but never is it more violent, more mad. Every thing is sacrificed to its safety or its vengeance; the shade of its enemies pursues it and makes it continually tremble; its own conscience torments it and leaves it no repose; the weakness of its organization, its instable position, warn it at every step of its approaching fall, and in its impotent despair it makes the convulsive efforts of one dying in agony. What, then, in its eyes are the lites of citizens, if they excite the slightest, the most remote suspicion? If the blood of thousands of victims could procure for it a moment of security, and add a few days to its existence, " Perish ujy enemies," it says; "this is required for the safety of the state, that is, for mine!" Why this frenzy, this cruelty? It is because the ancient government, having been overturned by force, and the new having been enthroned in the same way, the idea of right has disappeared from the sphere of power. Legitimacy does not protect it, even its novelty betrays its little value; every thing forebodes its short existence. Stripped of the reason and justice which it is obliged to invoke in its own support, it seeks for both in the very necessity of power, a social necessity, which is always visible, and it proclaims that the;afety of the people is the supreme care. Then the property and lives of individuals are.nothing; they are annihilated in the presence of the bloody spectre which arises in the midst of society; armed with force, and surrounded by PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 129 guards and scaffolds, it says, " I am the public power; to me is confided the safety of the people; it is I wh, watch over the interests of society." Now, do you know what is the result of this absolute want of respect for the individual, of this complete annihilation of man in presence of the alarming power which claims to represent society? It is that the feeling of association reap. pears in different directions; no longer a feeling directed by reason, foresight, and beneficence, but a blind, instiactive feeling, which urges man not to remain alone, without defence, in the midst of a society which is converted into a field of battle and a vast conspiracy; men then unite either to sustain power, when, influenced by the whirlwind of revolution, they are identified with it, and regard it as their only rampart, or to overturn it, if, some motive having urged them into the opposite ranks, they sc their most terrible enemy in the existing power, and a sword continually suspended over their heads. These men belong to al association, are devoted to an association, are ready to sacrifice themselves for it, for they cannot live aione; they know, they comprehend, at least instinctively, that the individual is nothing; for as the restraints that maintain social order have been broken, the individual no longer has a tranquil sphere where he can live in peace and independence, confident that a power founded on legitimacy and guided by reason and justice watches over the preservation of public order and the respect due to individual rights. Then timid men' are alarmed and humbled, and begin to represent that first scene of servitude where the oppressed is seen to kiss the hand of the oppressor, and the victim to reverence the executioner. Daring men resist and contend, or rather, conspiring in the dark, they prepare terrible explosions. No one then belongs to himself; the individual'is absorbed on all sides, either by the force which oppresses or by that which conspires. The tutelary divinity of individuals is justice; whenjustice vanishes, they are no more than imperceptible grains of dust carried away by the wind, or drops of water in the stormy waves of ocean. Imagine to yourself societies where this passing frenzy does not prevail, it is true, but which are yet devoid of true ideas on the rights and duties of individuals, and of those of public authority; societies where there are some wandering, uncertain., obscure, imperfect notions thereon, stifled by a thousand prejudices and errors; societies under which, nevertheless, public authority is organized under one form or another, and has become consolidated, thanks to the force of habit, and the absence of all other government better calculated to satisfy urgent necessities; you will then have an idea of the ancient societies, we should rather say, societies without Christianity, and you will understand the annihilation of the individual before the force of public power, either under an Asiatic despotism or the turbulent democracy of the ancient republics. And what you will then see will be precisely what you have observed in modern societies at times of revolution, only with this difference, that in these the evil is transitory and noisy, like the ravages of the tempest, while among the ancients it was the normal state, like the vitiated atmosphere which injures and corrupts all that breathe it. Let us examine the cause of these two opposite phenomena, the lofty patriotism of the Greeks and Romans, and the state of prostration and political degradation in which other nations lay, and in which those still lie who are not under the influence of Christianity; what is the cause of this individual abnegation which is found at the bottom of two feelings so contrary? and why do we not find among any of those nations that individual development which is observed in Europe, and which with us is connected with a reasonable patriotism, from which the feeling of a legitimate personal independence is not excluded? It is because in antiquity man did not know himself, or what he was; it is because his true relations with society were viewed through a thousand prejudices and errors, and consequently were very ill understood. This will show 17 130 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. that admiration for the patriotism, disinterestedness, and heroic self-denial of the ancients has been sometimes carried too far, and that these qualities, far fiom revealing in the men of antiquity a greater perfection of the individual, a superior elevation of mind to that of the men of modern times, rather indicate ideas less elevated and feelings less independent than our own. Perhaps some blind admirers of the ancients will be astonished at these assertions. Let them consider the women of India throwing themselves on the funeral-pile after the death of their husbands, and slaves putting themselves to death because they could not survive their masters, and they will see that personal self-denial is not an infallible sign of elevation of mind. Sometimes man does not understand his own dignity; he considers himself devoted to another being, absorbed by him, and then he regards his own existence only as a secondary thing, which has no object but to minister to the existence of another. We do not wish to underrate the merit which rightly belongs to the ancients; we do not wish to lower their heroism, as far as it is just and laudable, any more than we wish to attribute to the moderns an egotistical individuality, which prevents their sacrificing themselves for their country: our only object is to assign to every thing its place, by dissipating prejudices which are excusable up to a certain point, but do lamentable mischief by falsifying the principal features of ancient and modern history. This annihilation of the individual among the ancients arose also from the weakness and imperfection of his moral development, and fromn his want of a rule for his own guidance, which compelled society to interfere in all that concerned him, as if public reason was called upon to supply the defect of private reason. If we pay attention, we shall observe that in countries where political liberty was the most cherished, civil liberty was almost unknown. While the citizens flattered themselves that they were very free, because they took part in the public deliberations, they wanted that liberty which is most important to man, that which we now call civil liberty. We may form an idea of the thoughts and manners of the ancients on this point, by reading one of their most celebrated writers, Aristotle. In the eyes of this philosopher, the only title which renders a man worthy of the name of citizen, seems to be the participation in the government of the republic; and these ideas, apparently very democratic and calculated to extend the rights of the most numerous class, far from proceeding, as one would suppose, from an exaggeration of the dignity of man, was connected in his mind with a profound contempt for man himself. His system was to reserve all honor and consideration for a very limited number; the classes of citizens who were thus condemned to degradation and nullity were all laborers, artisans, and tradesmen. (Pol. 1. vii. c. 9, 12; 1. viii. c. 1, 2; I. iii. c. 1.) This theory supposed, as may be seen, very curious ideas on individuals and society, and is an additional confirmation of what I have said respecting the eccentricities, not to say monstrosities, which we see in the ancient republics. Let us never forget that one of the principal causes of the evil was the want of an intimate knowledge of man; it was the little value which was placed upon his dignity as man; the individual, deprived of guides to direct him, could not conciliate esteem; in a word, there was wanting the light of Christianity, which was alone capable of illuminating the chaos. The feeling of the dignity of man is deeply engraven on the heart of modern society; we find everywhere, written in striking characters, this truth, that man, by virtue of his title of man, is respectable and worthy of high consideration; hence it is that all the schools of modern times that have foolishly undertaken to exalt the individual, at the imminent risk of producing fearful perturbations in society, have adopted as the constant theme of their instructions, this dignity and nobility of man. They thus distinguish themselves in =he most decided manner from the democrats of antiquity; the latter acted ic PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 131 a narrow sphere, without departing from a certain order of things, without looking beyond the limits of their own country; in the spirit of modern democrats, on the contrary, we find a tendency to invade all branches, an ardent propagandism which embraces the whole world. They never invoke mean ideas; man, his reason, his impreseriptible ri]yhts, these are their perpetual theme. Ask them what is their design, and they will tell you that they desire to level all things, to avenge the sacred cause of humanity. This exaggeration of ideas, the pretext and motive for so many crimes, shows us a valuable fact, viz. the immense progress which Christianity has given to ideas with relation to the dignity of our nature. When they have to mislead societies which owe their civilization to Christianity, they find no better means than to invoke the dignity of human nature. The Christian religion, the enemy of all that is criminal, could not consent to see society overturned, under the pretence of defending and raising the dignity of man; this is the reason why a great number of the most ardent democrats have indulged in insults and sarcasms against religion. On the other hand, as history loudly proclaims that all our knowledge and feeling of what is true, just, and reasonable on this point, is due to the Christian religion, it has been recently attempted to make a monstrous alliance between Christian ideas and the most extravagant of democratic theories. A celebrated man has undertaken this enterprise; but true Christianity, that is, Catholicity, rejects these adulterous alliances; it ceases to acknowledge its most eminent apologists when they have quitted the path of eternal truth. De Lamennais now wanders in the darkness of error, embracing a deceitful shadow of Christianity; and the voice of the supreme Pastor of the Church has warned the faithful against being dazzled by the illusion of a name illustrious by so many titles. (16) CHAPTER XXIII. THE PROGRESS OF INDIVIDUALITY UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF CATHOLICITY IF we give a just and legitimate meaning to the word individuality, taking the feeling of personal independence in an acceptation which is not repugnant to the perfection of the individual, and does not oppose the constitutive principles of all society; moreover, if we seek the various causes which have influenced the development of this feeling, without speaking of that which we have already pointed out as one of the most important, viz. the true notion of man, and his connections with his fellows, we shall find many of them which are quite worthy of attention in Catholicity. M. Guizot was greatly deceived when, putting the faithful of the Church in the same rank with the ancient Rornans, he asserted that both were equally wanting in the feeling of personal independence. He describes the faithful as absorbed by the association of the Church, entirely devoted to her, ready to sacrifice themselves for her; so that, according to him, it was the interests of the association which induced them to act. There is an error here; but as this error has originated in a truth, it is our duty to distinguish the ideas and the facts with much attention. There is no doubt that from the cradle of Christianity the faithful have had an extreme attachment to the Church, and it was always well understood among them, that they could not leave the communion of the Church without ceasing to be numbered among the true disciples of Jesus Christ. It is equally undeniable that, in the words of M. Guizot, "There prevailed in the Christian Church a feeling of strong attachment to the Christian corporation, of devotion to its laws, and an ardent desire to extend its empire;" but it is not true that the origin and source of all these feelings was the spirit of association alone, to 132 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. the exclusion of all development of real individuality. The Christian belonged to an association, tLa that association was regarded by him as a means of obtaining eternal happiness, as the ship in which he was embarked, amid the tempests of the world, to arrive safe in the port of eternity: and although he believed it impossible to be saved out of the Church, he did not understand from that that he was devoted to the Church, but to God. The Roman was ready to sacrifice himself for his country; the Christian, for his faith. When the Romarr died, he died for his country; the faithful did not die foi the Church, but for God. If we open the monuments of Church history, and read the acts of the martyrs, we shall then see what passed in that terrible moment, when the Christian, fully arousing himself, showed in the presence of the instruments of torture, burning piles, and the most horrible punishments, the true principle which acted on his mind. The judge asks his name; he declares it, and adds, " I am a Christian." He is asked to sacrifice to the gods. "We only sacrifice to one God, the Creator of heaven and earth." He is reproached with the disgrace of following a man who has been nailed to the cross; for him the ignominy of the cross is a glory, and he loudly proclaims that the Crucified is his Saviour and his God. He is threatened with tortures; he despises them, for they are passing, and rejoices in being able to suffer something for his Master. The cross of punishment.is already prepared, the pile is lighted before his eyes, the executioner raises the fatal axe to strike off his head; what does it matter to him? all this is but for a moment, and after that moment comes a new life of ineffable and endless happiness. We thus see what influenced his heart; it was the love of his God and the interest of his eternal happiness. Consequently, it is utterly false that the Christian, like men of the ancient republics, destroyed his individuality in the association to which he belonged, allowing himself to be absorbed in that association like a drop of water in the immensity cf ocean. The Christian belonged to an association which gave him the rule of his faith and conduct; he regarded that association as founded and directed by God himself; but his mind and his heart were raised to God, and when following the voice of the Church, he believed that he was engaged with his own individual affair, which was nothing less than his eternal happiness. This distinction is quite necessary in an affair which has relations so various and delicate! that the slightest confusion may produce considerable errors. Here a hidden fact reveals itself to us, which is infinitely precious, and throws much light upon the development and perfecting of the individual in Christian civilization. It is absolutely necessary that there should be a social order to which the individual must submit; but it is also proper that he should not be absorbed by society to such an extent that he cannot be conceived but as forming part of it, and remains deprived of his own sphere of action. If this were the case, never would true civilization be completely developed; as it consists in the simultaneous perfecting of the individual and of society, it is necessary, for its existence, that both should have a well determined sphere, where their peculiar and respective movements.may not check and embarrass each other. After these reflections, to which I especially call the attention of all thinking men, I will point out a thing which has, perhaps, not yet been remarked; it is, that Christianity has eminently contributed to create that individual sphere in which man, without breaking the ties which connect him with society, is free to develop all his peculiar faculties. From the mouth of an Apostle went forth that generous expression which strictly limits political power:.' We ought to obey God rather than man." (Acts v. 29.) "Obedire oportet Deo magis quam hominibus." The Apostle thereby proclaims that the individual should cease to acknowledge power, when power exacts from him what he believes to be contrary to his conscience. It was among Christians that this great example was witnessed for the first time; individuals of all countries, of all ages, of both PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 133 sexes, of all conditions, braving the anger of authority, and all the fury of popular passions, rather than pronounce a single word contrary to the principles which they professed in the sanctuary of conscience; and this, not with arms in their hands, in the midst of popular commotions, where their impetuous passions are excited, which communicate to the mind temporary energy, but in the solitude and obscurity of dungeons, amid the fearful calmness of the tribunals, that is, in that situation where man, alone and isolated, cannot show force and dignity without revealing the elevation of his ideas, the nobleness of his feelings, the unalterable firmness of his conscience, and the greatness of his soul. Christianity engraved this truth deeply on the heart of man,' that individuals have duties to perform, even when the whole world is aroused against them; that they have an immense destiny to fulfil, and that it is entirely their own affair, the responsibility of which rests upon their own free will. This important truth, unceasingly inculcated by Christianity at all times, to both sexes, to all conditions, must have powerfully contributed to excite in man an active and ardent feeling of personality. This feeling, with all its sublimity, combining with the other inspirations of Christianity, all full of dignity and grandeur, has raised the human mind from the dust, where ignorance and rude superstitions, and systems of violence, which oppressed it on all sides, had placed and retained it. How strange and surprising to the ears of Pagans must have been those energetic words of Justin, which nevertheless expressed the disposition of mind of the majority of the faithful, when, in his Apology, addressed to Antoninus Pius, he said, "As we have not placed our hopes on present things, we contemn those who kill us, death being, moreover, a thing which cannot be avoided." This full and entire self-consciousness, this heroic contempt of death, this calm spirit of a man who, supported by the testimony of intimate feeling, sets at defiance all the powers of earth, must have tended the more to enlarge the mind, as they did not emanate from that cold stoical impassibility, the constant effort of which was to struggle against the nature of things without any solid motive. The Christian feeling had its origin in a sublime freedom from all that is earthly, in a profound conviction of the holiness of duty, and in that undeniable maxim, that man, in spite of all the obstacles which the world places in his way, should walk with a firm step towards the destiny which is marked out for him by his Creator. These ideas and feelings together communicated to the soul a strong and vigorous temper, which, without reaching in any thing the savage harshness of the ancients, raised man to all his dignity, nobleness, and grandeur. It must be observed that these precious effects were not confined to a small number of privileged individuals, but that, in conformity with the genius of the Christian religion, they extended to all classes; for one of the noblest characters of that divine religion is the unlimited expansion which it gives to all that is good; it knows no distinction of persons, and makes its voice penetrate the obscurest places of society. It was not only to the elevated classes and philosophers, but to the generality of the faithful, that St. Cyprian, the light of Africa, addressed himself, when, summing up in a few words all the grandeur of man, he marked with a bold hand the sublime position where our soul ought to maintain itself with constancy. "Never," he says, "never will he who feels himself to be the child of God admire the words of man. lie falls from his noblest state who can admire any thing but God." (De Spectaculis.) Sublime words, which make us boldly raise our heads, and fill our hearts with noble feelings; words which, diffusing themselves over all classes, like a fertilizing warmth, were capable of inspiring the humblest of men with what pre. viously seemed exclusively reserved for the transports of the poet: Os homini sublime dedit, coelumque tueri Jussit, et erectos ad sidera tollere cultus. M 134 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. The development of the moral life, the interior life, that life in which man, reflecting on himself, is accustomed to render a circumstantial account of all his actions, of the motives which actuate him, of the goodness or the wickedness of those motives, and the object to which they tend, is principally due to Chris tianity, to its unceasing influence on man in all his conditions, in all situations, in all moments of his life. Such a progress of the individual life in all that it has most intimate, most active, and most interesting for the heart of man, was incompatible with that absorption of the individual by society, with that blind self-denial, in which man forgot himself, to think only of' the association of which he formed a part. This moral and interior life was unknown to the ancients, because they wanted principles for supporting, rules for guiding, and inspirations for exciting and nourishing it. Thus at Rome, where the political element tries its ascendency over minds, when enthusiasm becomes extinguished by the effect of intestine dissensions, when every generous feeling becomes stifled by the insupportable despotism which succeeds to the last agitations of the republic, we see baseness and corruption develope themselves with fearful rapidity.. The activity of mind which before occupied itself in debates of the Forumn and the glorious exploits of war, no longer finding food, gave itself up to sensual pleasures with an abandonment which we can hardly imagine now-adays, in spite of the looseness of morals which we so justly deplore. Thus we see among the ancients only these two extremes, either the most exalted patriotism, or the complete prostration of the faculties of the soul, which abandons itself without reserve to the dictates of its irregular passions; there man was the slave either of his own passions; of another man, or of society. Since the moral tie which united men to Catholic society has been broken, since religious belief has been weakened, in consequence of the individual independence which Irotestantism has proclaimed in religious matters, it has unhappily become possible for us to conceive, by means of examples found in European civilization, what man still deprived of real knowledge of himself, hia origin and destiny, must have been. We will indicate in another place the points of resemblance which are found between ancient and modern society in the countries where the influence of religious ideas is enfeebled. It is enough now to remark, that if Europe had completely lost Christianity, according to the insane desires of some men, a generation would not have passed away without there being revived among us the individual and society such as they were among the ancients, except the modifications which the difference of the material state of the two civilizations would necessarily produce. The doctrine of free will, so loudly proclaimed by Catholicity, and sustained by her with such vigour, not only against the old Pagan teaching, but particularly against sectarians at all times, and especially against the founders of the pretended Reformation, has also contributed more than is imagined to develope and perfect the individual, to raise his ideas of independence, nobleness, and dignity. When man comes to consider himself as constrained by the irresistible force of destiny, and attached to a chain of events over which he has no control-when he comes to suppose that the operations of his mind, those active proofs of his freedom, are but vain illusions-he soon annihilates himself; he feels himself assimilated to the brute; he ceases to be the prince of living beings, the ruler of the earth; he is nothing more than a machine fixed in its place, which is compelled to perform its part in the great system of the universe. The social order ceases to exist; merit and demerit, praise and blame, reward and punishment, are only unmeaning words. If man enjoys or suffers, it is only in the same way as a shrub, which is sometimes breathed upon softly tby the zephyrs, and sometimes blasted by the north wind. How different it is when man is conscious of his liberty! Then he is master of his destiny; good and evil, life and death, are before his eyes; he can choose, and nothing PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 135 can violate the sanctuary of his conscience. There the soul is enthroned, there she is seated, full of dignity, and the whole world raging against her, the universe falling upon her fragile body, cannot force her will. The moral order is displayed before us in all its grandeur; we see good in all its beauty, and evil in all its deformity; the desire of doing well stimulates, and thj fear of doing ill restrains us; the sight of the recompense which can be obtained by an effort of free will, and which appears at the end of the path of virtue, renders that path more sweet and peaceful, and communicates activity and energy to the soul. If man is free, there remains something great and terrible, even in his crime, in his punishment, and even in the despair of hell. What is man deprived of liberty and yet punished? What is the meaning of this absurd proposition, a chief dogma of the founders of Protestantism? This man is a weak and miserable victim, in whose torture a cruel omnipotence delights; a God who has created him in order to see him suffer; a tyrant with infinite power, that is, the most dreadful' of monsters. But if man is free, when he suffers, he suffers because he has deserved it; and if we contemplate him in the midst of despair, plunged into an ocean of horrors, his brow furrowed by the just lightnings of the Eternal, we seem to hear him still pronounce those terrible words with a haughty bearing and proud look, non serviam, Iwill not obey. In man, as in the universe, all is wonderfully united; all the faculties of man have delicate and intimate relations with each other, and the movement of one chord in the soul makes all the others vibrate. It is necessary to call attention to this reciprocal dependence of all our faculties on each other, in order to anticipate an objection which may be made. We shall be told, all that has been said only proves that Catholicity has developed the individual in a mystical sense. No, the observations which I have made show something more than this; they prove that we owe to Catholicity the clear idea and lively feeling of moral order in all its greatness and beauty; they prove that we owe her the real strength of what we call conscience, and that if the individual believes himself to be called to a mighty destiny, confided to his own free will, and the care of which belongs entirely to him, it is to Catholicity he owes that belief; they prove that Catholicity has given man the true knowledge which he has of himself, the appreciation of his dignity, the respect which is paid to him as man; they prove that she has developed in our souls the germs of the noblest and most generous feelings; for she has raised our thoughts by the loftiest conceptions, dilated our hearts by the assurance of a liberty which nothing can take away, by the promise of an infinite reward, eternal happiness, while she leaves in our hands life and death, and makes us in a certain manner the arbiters of our own destiny. In all this there is more than mere mysticism; it is nothing less than the development of the entire man; nothing less than the true, the only noble, just, and reasonable individuality; nothing less than the collected powerful impulses which urge the individual towards perfection in every sense; it is nothing less than the first, the most indispensable, the most fruitful element of real civilization. CHAPTER XXIV. OF THE FAMILY.-MONOGAMY.-INDISSOLUBILITY OF THE CONJUGAL TIE. WE have seen what the individual owes to Catholicity; let us now see what the family owes her. It is clear that the individual, being the first element of the family, if it is Catholicity which has tended to perfect him, the improve. ment of the family will thus have been very much her work; but without in. sisting on this inference, I wish to consider the conjugal tie in itself, for which 136 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. purpose it is necessary to call attention to woman. I will not repeat here what phe was among the Romans, and what she is still among the nations who are not Christians; history, and still more the literature of Greece and Rome, afford us sad or rather shameful proofs on this subject; and all the nations of the earth offer us too many evidences of the truth and exactness of the observation of Buchanan, viz. that wherever Christianity does not prevail, there is a tendency to the degradation of woman. Perhaps on this point Protestantism will be unwilling to give way to Catholicity; it will assert that in all that affects woman the Reformation has in no degree prejudiced the civilization of Europe. We will not now inquire what evils Protestantism has occasioned in this respect; this question will be discussed in another part of the work; but it cannot be doubted, that when Protestantism appeared, the Catholic religion had already completed its task as far as woman is concerned. No one, indeed, is ignorant that the respect and consideration which are given to women, and the influence which they exercise on society, date further back than the first part of the 16th century. Hence it follows that Catholicity cannot have had Protestantism as a coadjutor; it acted entirely alone in this point, one of the most important of all true civilization; and if it is generally acknowledged that Christianity has placed woman in the rank which properly belongs to her, and which is most conducive to the good of the family and of society, this is a homage paid to Catholicity; for at the time when woman was raised from abjection, when it was attempted to restore her to the rank of companion of man, as worthy of him, those dissenting sects that also called themselves Christians did not exist, and there was no other Christianity than the Catholic Church. It has been already remarked in the course of this work, that when I give titles and honours to Catholicity, I avoid having recourse to vague generalities, and endeavour to support my assertions by facts. The reader will naturally expect me to do the same here, and to point out to him what are the means which Catholicity has employed to give respect and dignity to woman; he shall not be deceived in his expectation. First, and before descending to details, we must observe that the grand ideas of Christianity with respect to humanity must have contributed, in an extraordinary manner, to the improvement of the lot of woman. These ideas, which-applied without any difference to woman as well as to man, were an energetic protest against the state of degradation in which one-half of the human race was placed. The Christian doctrine made the existing prejudices against woman vanish for ever; it made her equal to man by unity of origin and destiny, and in the participation of the heavenly gifts; it enrolled her in the universal brotherhood of man, with his fellows and with Jesus Christ; it considered her as the child of God, the coheiress of Jesus Christ; as the companion of man, and no longer as a slave and the vile instrument of pleasure. Henceforth that philosophy which had attempted to degrade her, was silenced; that unblushing literature which treated women with so much insolence found a check in the Christian precepts, and a reprimand no less eloquent than severe in the dignified manner in which all the ecclesiastical writers, in imitation of the Scriptures, expressed themselves on woman. Yet, in spite of the beneficent influence which the Christian doctrines must have exercised by themselves, the desired end would not have been completely attained, had not the Church undertaken, with the warmest energy, to accomplish a work the most necessary, the most indispensable for the good organization of the family and society, I mean the reformation of marriage. The Christian doctrine on this point is very simple: one with one exclusively, andfor ever. But the doctrine would have been powerless, if the Church had not undertaken to apply it, and if she had not carried on this task with invincible firmness; for the passions, above all those of man, rebel against such a doctrine; and they would undoubtedly have trodden it under foot, if they had PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 137 not met with an insurmountable barrier, which did not leave them the most distant hope of triumph. Can Protestantism, which applauded with such senseless joy the scandal of Henry VIII., and accommodated itself so basely to the desires of the Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel, boast of having contributed to strengthen that barrier? What a surprising difference! During many centuries, amid circumstances the most various, and sometimes the most terrible, the Catholic Church struggles with intrepidity against the passions of potentates, to maintain unsullied the sanctity of marriage. Neither promises nor threats could move Rome; no means could obtain from her any thing contrary to the instructions of her Divine Master: Protestantism, at the first shock, or rather at the first shadow of the slightest embarrassment, at the mere fear of displeasing a prince who certainly was not very powerful, yields, humbles itself, consents to polygamy, betrays its own conscience, opens a wide door to the passions, and gives up to them the sanctity of marriage, the first pledge for the good of the family, the foundation-stone of true civilization. Protestant society on this point, wiser than the miscalled reformers who attempted to guide it, with admirable good sense repudiated the consequences of the conduct of its chiefs; although it did not preserve the doctrines of Catholicity, it at least followed the salutary impulse which it had received from them, and polygamy was not established in Europe. But history records facts which show the weakness of the pretended reformation, and the vivifying power of Catholicity. It tells us to whom it is owing that the law of marriage, that palladium of society, was not falsified, perverted, destroyed, amid the barbarous ages, amid the most fearful corruption, violence, and ferocity, which prevailed everywhere, as well at the time when invading nations passed pell-mell over Europe, as in that of feudality, and when the power of kings had already been preponderant,-history will tell what tutelary force prevented the torrent of sensuality from overflowing with all its violence, with all its caprices, from bringing about the most profound disorganization, from corrupting the character of European civilization, and precipitating it into that fearful abyss in which the nations of Asia have been for so many centuries. prejudiced writers liave carefully searched the annals of ecclesiastical history for the differences between popes and kings, and have taken occasion therein to reproach the Court of Rome with its intolerant obstinacy respecting the sanctity of marriage; if the spirit of party had not blinded them, they would have understood that, if this intolerant obstinacy had been relaxed for a moment, if the Roman Pontiff had given way one step before the impetuosity of the passions, this first step once made, the descent into the abyss would have been rapid; they would have admired the spirit of truth, the deep conviction, the lively faith with which that august see is animated; no consideration, no fear, has been able to silence her, when she had occasion to remind all, and especially kings and potentates, of this commandment: "They shall be two in one flesh; man shall not separate what God has joined." By showing themselves inflexible on this point, even at the risk of the anger of kings, not only have the popes performed the sacred duty which was imposed on them by their august character as chiefs of Christianity, but they have executed a political chef d'wuvre, and greatly contributed to the repose and well-being of nations. "For," says Voltaire, "the marriages of princes in Europe decide. the destiny of nations; and never has there been a court entirely devoted to debauchery, without producing revolutions and rebellions." (Essai sur l'Histoire eledrale t. iii. c. 101.) This correct remark of Voltaire will suffice to vindicate the pope, togethex with Catholicity, from the calumnies of their wretched detractors: it becomes still more valuable, and acquires an immense importance, if it is extended beyond the limits of the political order to the social. The imagination is affrighted 18 x2 138 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. at the thought of what would have happened, if these barbarous kings, in whom the splendor of the purple ill disguised the sons of the forest, if those haughty seigneurs, fortified in their castles, clothed in mail, and surrounded by their timid vassals, had not found a check in the authority of the Church; if at the first glance at a new beauty, if at the first passion which, when enkindled in their hearts, would have inspired them with a disgust for their legitimate spouses, they had not had the always-present recollection of an inflexible authority. They could, it is true, load a bishop with vexations; they could silence him with threats or promises; they might control the votes of a particular Council by violence, by intrigue, by subornation; but, in the distance, the power of the Vatican, the shadow of the Sovereign Pontiff, appeared to them like an alarming vision; they then lost all hope; all struggles became useless; the most violent. endeavors would never have given them the victory; the most astute intrigues, the most humble entreaties, would have obtained the same reply: "One with one only, and for ever." If we read but the history of the middle ages, of that immense scene of violence, where the barbarian, striving to break the bonds which civilization attempted to impose on him, appears so vividly; if we recollect that the Church was obliged to keep guard incessantly and vigilantly, not only to prevent -the ties of a marriage from being broken, but even to preserve virgins (and even those who were dedicated to God) from violence; we shall clearly see that, if she had not opposed herself, as a wall of brass, to the torrent of sensuality, the palaces of kings and the castles of seigneurs would have speedily become their seraglios and harems. What would have happened in the other classes? They would have followed the same course; and the women of Europe would have remained in the state of degradation in which the Mussulman women still are. As I have mentioned the followers of Mohammed, I+will reply in passing to those who pretend to explain monogamy and polygamy by climate alone. Christians and Mohammedans have been for a long time under the same sky, and their religions have been established, by the vicissitudes of the two races, sometimes in cold and sometimes in mild and temperate climates; and yet we have not seen the religions accommodate themselves to the climates; but rather, the climates have been, as it were, forced to bend to the religions. European nations owe eternal gratitude to Catholicity, which has preserved monogamy for them, one of the causes which undoubtedly have contributed the most to the good organization of the family, and the exaltation of woman. What would now be the condition of Europe, what respect would woman now enjoy, if Luther, the founder of Protestantism, had succeeded in inspiring society with the indifference which he shows on this point in his commentary on Genesis? "As to whether we may have several wives," says Luther, "the authority of the patriarchs leaves us completely free." He afterwards adds that "it is a thing neither permitted nor prohibited, and that he does not decide any thing thereupozi." Unhappy Europe! if a man, who had whole nations as followers, had uttered such words some centuries earlier, at the time when civilization had not yet received an impulse strong enough to make it take a decided line on the most important points, in spite of false doctrines. Unhappy Europe! if at the time when Luther wrote, manners had not been already formed, if the good organization, given to the family by Catholicity had not been too deeply rooted to be torn up by the hand of man Certainly the scandal of the Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel would not then have remained an isolated example, and the culpable compliance of the Lutheran doctors would have produced bitter fruits. What would that vacillating faith, that uncertainty, that cowardice with which the Protestant Church was seen to tremble at the mere demand of such a prince as the Landgrave, have availed, to control the fierce impetuosity of barbarous and corrupted nations? How would a struggle, lasting for ages, have been PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 139 sustained by those who, at the first menace of battle, gave way, and were routed before the shock? Besides monogamy, it may be said that there is nothing more important than the indissolubility of marriage. Those who, departing from the doctrine of the Church, think that it is useful in certain cases to allow divorce, so as to dissolve the conjugal tie, and permit each of the parties to marry again, still will not deny that they. regard divorce as a dangerous remedy, which the legislator only avails himself of with regret, and only on account of crime or faithlessaess; they will see, also, that a great number of divorces would produce very great evils, and that in order to prevent these in countries where the civil laws allow the abuse of divorce, it is necessary to surround this permission with all imaginable precaution; they will consequently grant that the most efficacious manner of preventing corruption of manners, of guarantying the tranquillity of families, and of opposing a firm barrier to the torrent of evils which is ready to inundate society, is to establish the indissolubility of marriage as a moral principle, to base it upon motives which exercise a powerful ascendency over the heart, and to keep a constant restraint on the passions, to prevent them from slipping down so dangerous a declivity. It is clear that there is no work more worthy of being the object of the care and zeal of the true religion. Now) what religion but the Catholic has fulfilled this duty? What other religion has more perfectly accomplished so salutary and difficult a task? Certainly not Protestantism, for it did not even' kww how to penetrate the depth of the reasons which guided the conduct of the Church on this point. I have taken care to do justice in' another place to the wisdom which Protestant society has displayel in not giving itself up entirely to the impulse which its chiefs wished to communicate to it. But it must not be supposed from this that Protestant doctrines have not had lamentable consequences in countries calling themselves reformed. Let us hear what a Protestant lady, Madame de Stael, says in her book on Germany, speaking of a country which she loves and admires: "Love," she says, " is a religion in Germany, but a poetical religion which tolerates very freely. all that sensibility can excuse. It cannot be denied that in the Protestant provinces the facility of divorce is injurious to the sanctity of marriage. They change husbands as quietly as if they were arraniging the incidents of a drama: the good nature of the man and woman prevents the mixture of any bitterness with their easy ruptures; and as there is among the Germans more imagination than real passion, the most curious events take place with singular tranquillity. Yet it is thus that manners and characters lose all consistency; the paradoxical spirit destroys the most sacred institutions, and there are no well established rules on any subject." (De l'Allemagne, p. 1, c. 3.) Misled by their hatred against the Roman Church, and excited by their rage for innovation in all things, the Protestants thought they had made a great reform in secularizing marriage, if I may so speak, and in rejecting the Catholic doctrine, which declared it a real sacrament. This is not the place to enter upon a dogmatical discussion of this matter; I shall content myself with observing, that by depriving marriage of the august seal of a sacrament, Protestantism showed that it had little knowledge of the human heart. To consider marriage, not as a simple civil contract, but as a real sacrament, was to place it' under the august shade of religion, and to raise it above the stormy atmosphere of the passions; and who can doubt that this was absolutely necessary to restrain the most active, capricious, and violent passion of the heart of man? The civil laws are insufficient to produce such an effect. Motives are required, which, being drawn from a higher source, exert a more efficacious influence. The Protestant doctrine overturned the power of the Church with respect to marriage, and gave up matters of this kind exclusively to the civil power. Some one will perhaps think that the increase of the secular power on this point could, not but serve 140 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. the cause of civilization, and that to. drive the ecclesiastical authority from this ground was a magnificent triumph gained over exploded prejudices, a valuable victory over unjust usurpation. Deluded man! If your mind possessed any lofty thought, if your heart felt the vibration of those harmonious chords which display the passions of man with so much delicacy and exactness, and teach the best means of directing them, you would see, you would feel, that to place marriage under the mantle of religion, and to withdraw it as much as possible from profane interference, was to purify, to embellish, and to surround it with the most enchanting beauty; for thus is that precious treasure, which is blasted by a look, and tarnished by the slightest breath, inviolably preserved. Would you not wish to have the nuptial bed veiled and strictly guarded by religion? CHAPTER XXV. OF THE PASSION OF LOVE. BUT it will be said to Catholics, "Do you not see that your doctrines are too hard and rigorous? They do not consider the weakness and inconstancy of the human heart, and require sacrifices above its strength. Is it not cruel to attempt to subject the most tender affections, the most delicate feelings, to the rigor of a principle? Cruel doctrine, which endeavors to hold together, bound to each other by a fatal tie, those who no longer love, who feel a mutual disgust, who perhaps hate each other with a profound hatred! When you answer these two beings who long to be separated, who would rather die than remain united, with an eternal Never, showing them the divine seal which was placed upon their union at the solemn moment, do you not forget all the rules of prudence? Is not this to provoke despair? Protestantism, accommodating itself to our infirmity, accedes more easily to the demands, sometimes of caprice, bit often also of weakness; its indulgence is a thousand times preferable to your rigor." This requires an answer; it is necessary to remove the delusion which produces these arguments, too apt, unhappily, to mislead the judgment, because they begin by seducing the heart. In the first place, it is an exaggeration to say that the Catholic system reduces unhappy couples to the extremity of despair. There are cases in which prudence requires that they should separate, and then neither the doctrines nor the practice of the Catholic Church oppose the separation. It is true that this does not dissolve the conjugal tie, and that neither of the parties can marry again. But it cannot be said that one of them is subject to tyranny; they are not compelled to live together, consequently they do not suffer the intolerable torment of remaining united when they abhor each other. Very well, we shall be told, the separation being pronounced, the parties are freed from the punishment of living together; but they cannot contract new ties, consequently they are forbidden to gratify another passion which, perhaps, their heart conceals, and which may have been the cause of the disgust or the hatred whence arose the unhappiness or discord of their first union. Why not consider the marriage as altogether dissolved? Why should not the parties become entirely free? Permit them to obey the feelings of their hearts, which, newly fixed on another object, already foresee happier days. Here, no doubt, the answer seems difficult, and the force of the difficulty becomes urgent; but, nevertheless, it is here that Catholicity obtains the most signal triumph; it is here it clearly shows how profound is its knowledge of the heart of man, how prudent its doctrines, and how wise and provident its conduct. Its rigor, which seems excessive, is only necessary severity; this conduct, far from meriting the reproach of cruelty, is a guarantee for the repose and well-being of man. But it is a thing which it is difficult to understand at first sight; thus we are con PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITI CATHOLICITY. 141 pelled to develope this matter by entering into a profound examination of the principles which justify by the light of reason the conduct pursued by the Catholic Church; let us examine this conduct, not only in respect to marriage, but in all that relates to the direction of the heart of man. In the direction of the passions there are two systems, the one of compliance, the other of resistance. In the first of these they are yielded to as they advance; an invincible obstacle is never opposed to them; they are never left without hope. A line is traced around them which, it is true, prevents them from exceeding a certain boundary; but they are given to understand that if they come to place their foot upon this limit, it will retire a little further; so that the compliance is in proportion to the energy and obstinacy of their demands. In the second system, a line is equally marked out to the passions which they cannot pass; but it is a line fixed, immovable, and everywhere guarded by a wall of brass. In vain do they attempt to pass it; they have not even the shadow of hope; the principle which resists them will never change, will never consent to any kind of compromise. Therefore, no resource remains but to take that course which is always open to man, that of sin. The first system allows the fire to break out, to prevent an explosion; the second hinders the beginning of it, in the fear of being compelled to arrest its progress. In the first, the passions are feared and regulated at their birth; and hopes of restraining them when they have grown up are entertained; in the second, it is thought that, if it is difficult to restrain them when they are feeble, it will be still more so when they are strengthened. In the one, they act on the supposition that the passions are weakened by indulgence; in the other, it is believed that gratification, far from satiating, only renders them every day more devouring. It may be said, generally speaking, that Catholicity follows the second of these systems; that is to say, with respect to the passions, her constant rule is to. check them at the first step, to deprive them of all hope from the first, and to stifle them, if possible, in their cradle. It must be observed, that we speak here of the severity with respect to the passions themselves, not with respect to man, who is their prey; it is very consistent to give no truce to passion, and to be indulgent towards the person under its influence; to be inexorable towards the offence, and to treat the offender with extreme mildness. With respect to marriage, this system has been acted on by Catholicity with astonishing firmness; Protestantism has taken the opposite course. Both are agreed on this point, that divorce, followed by the dissolution of the conjugal tie, is a very great evil; but there is this difference between them, that the Catholic system does not leave even the hope of a conjuncture in which this dissolution will be permitted; it forbids it absolutely, without any restriction; it declares it impossible: the Protestant system, on the contrary, consents to it in certain cases. Protestantism does not possess the divine seal which guaranties the perpetuity of marriage, and renders it sacred and inviolable; Catholicity does possess this seal, impresses it on the mysterious tie, and from that moment marriage remains under the shadow of an august symbol. Which of the two religions is the most prudent in this point? Which acts with the most wisdom? To answer this question, let us lay aside the dogmatical reasons, and the intrinsical morality of the human actions which form the subject of the laws which we arc now examining; and let us see which of the two systems is the most conducive to the difficult task of managing and directing the passions. After having considered the nature of'the human heart, and consulted the experience of every day, it may be affirmed that the best way to repress a passion is to leave it without hope; to comply with it, to allow it continual indulgences, is to excite it more and more; it is to play with fire amid a heap of combustibles, by allowing the flame to be lit, from time to time, in the'vain confidence of being always able to put out the conflagration. Let us take a rapid glance at the most violent 142 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. passions of the heart of man, and observe what is their ordinary course, according to the system which is pursued in their regard. Look at the gambler, who is ruled by an indefinable restlessness, which is made up of an insatiable cupidity and an unbounded prodigality, at the same time. The most enormous fortune will not satisfy him; and yet he risks all, without hesitation, to the hazard of a moment. The man who still dreams of immense treasures amid the most fearful misery, restlessly pursues an object which resembles gold, but which is not it, for the possession thereof does not satisfy him. His heart can only exist amid uncertainty, chances, and perils. Suspended between hope and fear, he seems to be pleased with the rapid succession of lively emotions which unceasingly agitate and torment him. What remedy will cure this malady-this devouring fever? Will you recommend to him a system of compliance? will you tell him to gamble, but only to a certain amount, at certain times, and in certain places? What will you gain by this? Nothing at all. If these means were good for any thing, there would be no gambler in the world who would not be cured of his passion; for there is no one who has not often marked out for himself these limits, and often said to himself, " You shall only play till such an hour, in such a place, and to such an amount." What is the effect of these palliations-of these impotent precautions-on the unhappy gambler? That he miserably deceives himself. The passion consents, only in order to gain strength, and the better to secure the victory: thus it gains ground; it con. stantly enlarges its sphere; and leads its victim again into the same, or into greater excesses. Do you wish to make a radical cure? If there be a remedy, it must be to abstain completely; a remedy which may appear difficult at first, but will be found the easiest in practice. When the passion finds itself deprived of all hope, it will begin to diminish, and in the end will disappear. No man of experience will raise the least doubt as to the truth of what I have said; every one will agree with me, that the only way to destroy the formidable passion of gambling is to deprive it at once of all food, to leave it without hope. Let us pass to another example, more analogous to the subject which I intend to explain. Let us suppose a man under the influence of love. Do you believe that the best way to cure his passion will be to give him opportunities, even though very rare, of seeing the object of his passion? Do you think that it will be salutary to authorize him to continue, while you forbid him to multiply, these dangerous interviews? Will such a precaution quench the flame which burns in his heart? You may be sure that it will not. The limits will even augment its force. If you allow it any food, even with the most parsimonious hand, if you permit it the least success, you see it constantly increase, until it upset every thing that opposes it. But take away all hope, send the lover on a long journey, or place before him an impediment which precludes the probability, or even the possibility, of success; then, except in very rare cases, you will obtain at first distraction, and then forgetfulness. Is not this the daily teaching of experience? Is it not the remedy which necessity every day suggests to the fathers of families? The passions resemble fire. They are extinguished by a large quantity of water; but a few drops only render them more ardent. Let us raise our thoughts still higher; let us observe the passions acting in a wider field, in more extended regions. Whence comes it that so many strong passions are awakened at times of public disturbance? It is, because then they all hope to be gratified; it is, because the highest ranks, the oldest and most powerful institutions, having been overturned, and replaced by others, which were hitherto imperceptible, all the passions see a road open before them, amid the tempest and confusion; the barriers apparently insurmountable, the sight of which prevented their existence, or strangled them in the cradle, do not exist; as all is then unprotected and defenceless, it is only required to have boldness und intrepidity enough to stand amid the ruins of all that was old. PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 143 Regarding things in the abstract, there is nothing more strikingly absurd than hereditary monarchy, the succession secured to a family which may at any time place on the throne a child, a fool, or a wretch: and yet in practice there is nothing more wise, prudent, and provident. This has been taught by the long experience of ages, it has been shown by reason, and proved by the sad warnings of those nations who have tried elective monarchy. Now, what is the cause of this? It is what we are endeavoring to explain. Hereditary monarchy precludes all the hopes of irregular ambition; without that, society always contains a germ of trouble, a principle of revolt, which is nourished by those who conceive a hope of one day obtaining the command. In quiet times, and under an hereditary monarchy, a subject, however rich, however distinguished he may be for his talent or his valour, cannot, without madness, hope to be king; and such a thought never enters his head. But change the circumstances, — admit, I will not say, the probability, but the possibility of such an event, and you will see that there will immediately be ardent candidates. It would be easy to develope this doctrine more at length, and apply it to all the passions of man; but enough has been said to show that the first thing to be done when you have to subdue a passion, is to oppose to it an insurmountable barrier, which it can have no hope of passing. Then the passion rages for a little time, it rebels against the obstacle that resists it; but when it finds that to be immovable, it recedes, it is cast down, and, like the waves of the sea, it falls back murmuring to the level which has been marked out for it. There is a passion in the heart of man, a passion which exerts a powerful influence on the destinies of his life, and too often, by its deceitful illusions, forms a long chain of sadness and misfortuue. This passion, which has for its necessary object the preservation of the human race, is found, in some form, in all the beings of nature; but, inasmuch as it resides in the soul of an intelligent being, it assumes a peculiar character in man. In brutes, it is only an instinct, limited to the preservation of the species; in man, the instinct becomes a passion; and that passion, enlivened by the fire of imagination, rendered subtile by the powers of the mind; inconstant and capricious, because it is guided by a free will, which can indulge in as many whims as there are different impressions for the senses and the heart, is changed into a vague, fickle feeling, which is never contented, and which nothing can satisfy. Sometimes it is the restlessness of a man in a fever; sometimes the frenzy of a madman; sometimes a dream, which ravishes the soul into regions of bliss; sometimes the anguish and the convulsions of agony. Who can describe the variety of forms under which this deceitful passion presents itself? Who can tell the number of snares which it lays for the steps of unhappy mortals? Observe it at its birth, follow it in its career, up to the moment when it dies out like an expiring lamp. Hardly has the down appeared on the face of man, when there arises in his heart a mysterious feeling, which fills him with trouble and uneasiness, without his being aware of the cause. A pleasing melancholy glides into his heart, thoughts before unknown enter his mind, seductive images pervade his imagination, a secret attraction acts on his soul, unusual gravity appears in his features, all his inclinations take a new direction. The games of childhood no longer please him; every thing shows a new life, less innocent, less tranquil; the tempest does not yet rage, the sky is not darkened, but clouds, tinged with fire, are the sad presage of what is to come. When he becomes adolescent, that which was hitherto a feeling, vague, mysterious, incomprehensible, even to himself, becomes, from that time, more decided; objects are seen more clearly, they appear in their real nature; the passion sees, and seizes on them. But do not imagine that it becomes more constant on that account. It is as vain, as changeable, as capricious as the multitude of objects which by turns present themselves to it. It is constantly deluded, it pursues fleeting shadows, seeks a 144 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. satisfaction which it never finds, and awaits a happiness which.it never attains With an excited imagination, a burning heart, with his whole soul transported, and all his faculties subdued, the ardent young man is surrounded by a brilliant chain of illusions; he communicates these to all that environs him; he gives greater splendor to the light of heaven, he clothes the earth with richer verdure and more brilliant coloring, he sheds on all the reflection of his own enchantment. In manhood, when the thoughts are more grave and fixed, when the heart is more constant, the will more firm, and resolutions more lasting; when the conduct which governs the destinies of life is subjected to rule, and, as it were, confirmed in its faith, this mysterious passion continues to agitate the heart of man, and it torments him with unceasing disquietude. We only observe that the passion is become stronger and more energetic, owing to the development of the physical organization; the pride which inspires man with independence of life, the feeling of greater strength, and the abundance of new powers, render him more decided, bold, and violent; while the warnings and lessons of experience have made him more provident and crafty. We no longer see the candor of his earlier years. He now knows how to calculate; he is able to approach his object by covert ways, and to choose the surest means. Woe to the man who does not provide in time against such an enemy! His existence will be consumed by a fever of agitation; amid disquietudes and torments, if he does not die in the flower of his age, he will grow old still ruled by this fatal passion; it will accompany him to the tomb, surrounding him, in his last days, with those repulsive and hideous forms which are exhibited in a countenance furrowed by years, and in eyes which are already veiled by the shades of death. What plan should be adopted to restrain this passion, to confine it within just limits, and prevent its bringing misfortune to individuals, disorder to families, and confusion to society? The invariable rule of Catholicity, in the morality which she teaches, as well as in the institutions which she establishes, is repres. sion; Catholicism does not allow a desire she declares to be culpable in the eyes of God; even a look, when accompanied by an impure thought. Why this severity? For two reasons; on account of the intrinsic morality which there is in this prohibition; and also, because there'is profound wisdom in stifling the evil at its birth. It is certainly easier to prevent a man's consenting to evil desires, than it is to hinder his gratifying them when he has allowed them to enter his inflamed heart. There is profound reason in securing tranquillity to the soul, by not allowing it to remain, like Tantalus, with the water at his burning lips. " Quid vis videre, quod non licet habere?" Why do you wish to see that which you are forbidden to possess? is the wise observation of the author of. the admirable Imitation of Christ; thus summing up, in a few words, all the prudence which is contained in the holy severity of the Christian doctrine. The ties of marriage, by assigning a legitimate object to the passions, still do not dry up the source of agitation and the capricious restlessness which the heart conceals. Possession cloys and disgusts, beauty fades and decays, the illusions vanish, and the charms disappear; man, in the presence of a reality which is far from reaching the beauty of the dreams inspired by his ardent imagination, feels new desires arise in his heart; tired with what he possesses, he entertains new illusions; he seeks elsewhere the ideal happiness which he thought he had found, and quits the unpleasing reality which thus deceives his brightest hopes. Give, then, the reins to the passions of man; allow him in any way to entertain the illusion that he can make himself any new ties; permit him to believe that he is not attached for ever, and without recall, to the companion of his life; and you will see that disgust will soon take possession of him, that discord will PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 145 be more violent and striking, that the ties will begin to wear out before they are contracted, and will break at the first shock. Proclaim, on the contrary, a law which makes no exception of poor or rich, weak or powerful, vassals or kings, which makes no allowance for difference of situation, of character, health, or any of those numberless motives which, in the hands of passions, and especially those of powerful men, are easily changed into pretexts; proclaim that this law is from heaven, show a divine, seal on the marriage tie, tell the murmuring passions that if they will gratify themselves they must do so by immorality; tell them that the power which is charged with the preservation of this divine law will never make criminal compliances, that it will never dispense with the infraction of the divine law, and that the crime will never be without remorse; you will then see the passions become dalm and resigned; the law will be diffused and strengthened, will take root in customs; you will have secured the good order and tranquillity of families for ever, and society will be indebted to you for an immense benefit. Now this is exactly what Catholicity has done, by efforts which lasted for ages; it is what Protestantism would have destroyed, if Europe had generally followed its doctrine and example, if the people had not been wiser than their deceitful guides. Protestants and false philosophers, examining the doctrines and institutions of the Catholic Church through their prejudices and animosity, have not understood the admirable power of the two characteristics impressed at all times and in all places on the ideas and works of Catholicity, viz. unity and fixity; unity in doctrines, and fixity in conduct. Catholicity points out an object, and wishes us to pursue it straight forward. It is a reproach to philosophers and Protestants, that after having declaimed against unity of doctrine, they also declaimed against fixity of conduct. If they had reflected on man, they would have understood that this fixity is the secret of guiding and ruling him, and, when desirable of restraining his passions, of exalting his mind when necessary, and of rendering him capable of great sacrifices and heroic actions. There is nothing worse for man than uncertainty and indecision; nothing that weakens and tends more to make him useless. Indecision is to the will what skepticism is to the mind. Give a man a definite object, and if he will devote himself to it, he will attain it. Let him hesitate between two different ways, without a fixed rule to guide his conduct; let him be ignorant of his intention; let him not know whither he is going, A- e rTus will see his energy relax, his strength diminish, and he will stop. Do:,/U baow by what secret great minds govern the world? Do you know what renders them capable of heroic actions? And how all those who surround them are rendered so? It is that they have a fixed object, both for themselves and for others; it is that they see that object clearly, desire it ardently,'strive after it directly, with firm hope and lively faith, without allowing any hesitation in themselves or in others. Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon, and the other heroes of ancient and modern times, no doubt exercised a fascinating influence by the ascendency of their genius; but the secret of this ascendency, the secret of their power, and of that force of impulse by which they surmounted all, was the unity of thought, the fixity of plan, which produced in them that invincible, irresistible character which gave them an immense superiority over other men. Thus Alexander passed the Granicus, undertook and completed his wonderful conquest of Asia; thus Caesar passed the Rubicon, put Pompey to flight, triumphed at Pharsalia, and made himself master of the world;, thus did Napoleon disperse those who parleyed about the fate of France, conquered his enemies at Marengo, obtained the crown of Charlemagne, alarmed and astonished the world by the victories of Austerlitz and Jena. Without unity there is no order, without fixity there is no stability; and in the moral as in the physical world, without order and stability nothing prospers. Protestantism, which has pretended to advance the individual and society by ~19 N 146 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. destroying religious unity, has introduced into creeds and institutions the mul. tiplicity and fickleness of private judgment; it has everywhere spread confusion and disorder, and has altered the nature of European civilization by inoculating it with a disastrous principle which has caused and will continue to cause lament. able evils. And let it not be supposed, that Catholicity, on account of the unity of her doctrines and the fixity of her conduct, is opposed to the progress of ages. There is nothing to prevent that which is one from advancing, and there may be movement in a system which has some fixed points. The universe whose grandeur astonishes us, whose prodigies fill us with admiration, whose beauty and variety enchant us, is united, is ruled by laws constant and ixed. Behold some of the reasons which justify the strictness of Catholicity, mehold why she has not been able to comply with the demands of a passion which, once let loose, has no boundary or barrier, introduces trouble into hearts, disorder into families, takes away the dignity of manners, dishonors the modesty of women, and lowers them from the noble rank of the companions of men. I do not deny that Catholicity is strict on this point; but she could not give up this strictness without renouncing at the same time the sublime functions of the depository of sound morality, the vigilant sentinel which guards the destinies di humanity. (17) CHAPTER XXVI. VIRGINITY IN ITS SOCIAL ASPECT. WE have seen, in the fifteenth chapter, with what jealousy Catholicity endeavors to veil the secrets of modesty; with what perseverance she imposes the restraint of morality on the most impetuous passion of the human heart. She shows us all the importance which belongs to the contrary virtue, by crowning with peerless splendor the total abstinence from sensual pleasure, viz. virginity. Frivolous minds, and principally those who are inspired by a voluptuous heart, do not understand how much Catholicity has thus contributed to the elevation of woman; but such will not be the case with reflecting men who are capable of seeing that all that tends to raise to the highest degree of delicacy the feeling of modesty, all that fortifies morality, all that contributes to make a considerable -"....'' of women models of the most heroic virtue, equally tends to place wo,..-.., the atmosphere of gross passion. Woman then ceases to be presented to the eyes of man as the mere instrument of pleasure; none of the attractions with which nature has endowed her are lost or diminished, and she has no longer to dread becoming an object of contempt and disgust, after having been the unhappy victim of profligacy. The Catholic Church is profoundly acquainted with these truths; and while she watched over the sanctity of the conjugal tie, while she created in the bosom of the family this admirable dignity of the matron, she covered with a mysterious veil the countenance of the Christian virgin, and she carefully guarded the spouses of the Lord in the seclusion of the sanctuary. It was reserved for Luther, the gross profaner of Catharine de Bore, to act in defiance of the profound and delicate wisdom of the Church on this point. After the apostate monk had violated the sacred seal set by religion on the nuptial bed, his was the unchaste hand to tear away the sacred veil of virgins consecrated to God: it was worthy of his hard heart to excite the cupidity of princes, to induce them to seize upon the possessions of these defenceless virgins, and expel them from their abodes. Sec him everywhere excite the flame of sensuality, and break through all control. What will become of virgins devoted to the sanctuary? Like timid doves, will they not fall into the snares of the libertine? Is this PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 117 the way to increase the respect paid to the female sex? Is this the way to increase the feeling of modesty and to advance humanity? Was this the way in which Luther gave a generous impulse to future generations, perfected the human mind, and gave vigor and splendor to refinement and civilization? What man with a tender and sensitive heart can endure the shameless declamation of Luther, especially if he has read the Cyprians, the Ambroses, the Jeromes, and the other shining lights of the Catholic Church, on the sublime honor of the Christian virgin? Who, then, will object to see, during ages when the most savage barbarism prevailed, those secluded dwellings where the spouses of the Lord secured themselves from the dangers of the world, incessantly employed in raising their hands to heaven, to draw down upon the earth the dews of divine mercy? In times and countries the most civilized, how sad is the contrast between the asylums of the purest and loftiest virtue, and the ocean of dissipation and profligacy! Were these abodes a remnant of ignorance, a monument of fanaticism, which the coryphaei of Protestantism did well to sweep from the earth? If this be so, let us protest against all that is noble and disinterested; let us stifle in our hearts all enthusiasm for virtue; let every thing be reduced to the grossest sensuality; let the painter throw away his pencil, the poet his lyre; let us forget our greatness and our dignity; let us degrade ourselves, saying, "Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die!" No; true civilization can never forgive Protestantism for this immoral and impious work; true civilization can never forgive it for having violated the sanctuary of modesty and innocence, for having employed all its efforts to destroy respect for virginity; thus treading under foot a doctrine professed by all the human race. It did not respect what was venerated by the Greeks in the priestesses of Ceres, by the Romans in their vestals, by the Gauls in their druidesses, by the Germans in their prophetesses. It has carried the want of respect for modesty farther than was ever done by the dissolute nations of Asia, and the barbarians of the new world. It is certainly a disgrace for Europe to have attacked what was respected in all parts of the world, to have treated as a mistaken prejudice the universal belief of the human race, sanctioned, moreover, by Christianity. What invasion of barbarians'was equal to this attack of Protestantism on all that ought to be most inviolable among men? It has set the fatal example in modern revolutions of the crimes which have been committed. When we see, in warlike rage, the barbarity of the conquerors remove all restraint from a licentious soldiery, and let them loose against the abodes of virgins consecrated to God, there is-nothing but what may be conceived. But when these holy institutions are persecuted by system, when the passions of the populace are excited against them, by grossly assailing their origin.and object, this is more than brutal and inhuman. It is a thing which cannot be described, when those who act in this way boast of being Reformers, followers of the pure Gospel, and proclaim themselves the disciples of Him who, in His sublime councils, has pointed out virginity as one of the noblest virtues that can adorn the Christian's crown. Now, who is ignorant that this was one of the works to which Protestantism devoted itself with. the greatest ardor? Woman without modesty will be an incentive to sensuality, but will never attract the soul by the mysterious feeling which is called love. It is very remarkable, that although the most urgent desire of the heart of woman is to please, yet as soon as she forgets modesty she becomes displeasing and disgusting. Thus it is wisely ordained that what wounds her heart the most sharply, becomes the punishment of her fault. Hence, every thing that maintains in woman the delicate feeling of modesty, elevates her, adorns her, gives her greater ascendency over the heart of man, and creates for her a distinguished place in the domestic as well as in the social order. These truths were not understood 149 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. by Protestantism when it condemned virginity. It is true this virtue is not a necessary condition of modesty, but it is its beau ideal and type of perfection; and certainly we cannot destroy this model, by denying its beauty, by condemning its imitation as injurious, without doing great injury to modesty itself, which, continually struggling against the most powerful passion of the heart of man, cannot be preserved in all its purity, unless it be accompanied by the greatest precautions. Like a flower of infinite delicacy, of ravishing colours, of the sweetest perfume, it can scarcely support the slightest breath of wind; its beauty is destroyed with extreme facility, and its perfume readily evaporates. But you will perhaps urge against virginity the injury which it does to population; you will consider the offerings which are made on the altar by this virtue as so much taken from the multiplication of the human race. Fortunately the observations of the most distinguished political economists have destroyed this delusion, originated by Protestantism, and supported by the incredulous philosophy of the 18th century. Facts have shown, in a convincing manner, two truths of equal importance in vindicating Catholic doctrines and institutions; 1, that the happiness of nations is not necessarily in proportion to the increase of their population; 2, that the augmentation and diminution of the population depend on many concurrent causes; that religious celibacy, if it be among them, has an insignificant influence. A false religion and an illegitimate and egotistical philosophy have attempted to assimilate the secrets of this increase of the human race to that of other living beings. Ali idea of religion has been taken away; they have seen in humanity only a vast field where nothing was to be left sterile. Thus they have prepared the way for the doctrine which considers individuals as machines from which all possible profit should be drawn. No more was thought of charity, or the sublime instructions of religion with respect to the dignity and destinies of man; thus industry has become cruel, and the organization of labor, established on a basis purely material, increases the present, but fearfully menaces the future well-being of the rich. How profound are the designs of Providence! The nation which has carried these fatal principles to the fullest extent now finds itself overcharged with men and products. Frightful misery devours her most numerous classes, and all the ability of her rulers will not be able to avoid the rock she is running on, urged by the power of the elements to which she has abandoned herself. The eminent professors of Oxford who, it seems, begin to see the radical vices of Protestantism, would find here a rich subject for meditation, if they would examine how far the pretended reformers of the 16th century have contributed, in preparing the critical situation in which England finds herself, in spite of her immense progress. In the physical world all is disposed by number, weight, and measure; the laws of the universe show infinite calculation-infinite geometry; but let us not imagine that we can express all by our imperfect signs, and include every thing in our limited combinations; let us, above all, avoid the foolish error of assimilating too much the moral and the physical world-of applying indiscriminately to the first what only belongs to the second, and of upsetting by our pride the mysterious harmony of the creation. Man is not born simply for multiplication of his species; this is not the only part which he is intended to perform in the great machine of the universe; he is a being according to the image and likeness of God-a'being who has his proper destiny-a destiny superior to all that surrounds him on earth. Do not debase him, do not level him with the earth, by inspiring him with earthly thoughts alone; do not oppress his heart, by depriving him of noble and -elevated sentiments-by leaving him no taste for any but material enjoyments. If religious thoughts lead him to an austere life-if the inclination to sacrifice the pleasures of this life on the altar of the PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 149 God whom he adores takes possession of his heart-why should you hinder him? What right have you to despise a feeling which certainly requires greater strength of mind than is necessary for abandoning one's self to pleasure? These considerations, which affect both sexes, have still greater force when they are applied to the female. With her lively imagination, her feeling heart, and ardent mind, she has greater need than man of serious inspiration, of grave, solemn thoughts, to counterbalance the activity with which she flies from object to object, receiving with extreme facility impressions of every thing she touches, and, like a magnetic agent, communicating them in her turn to all that surrounds her. Allow, then, a portion of that sex to devote itself to a life of contemplation and austerity; allow young girls and matrons to have always. before their eyes a model of all the virtues-a sublime type of their noblest ornament, which is modesty. This will certainly not be without utility. Be assured, these virgins are not taken away from their families, nor from society-both will recover with usury what you imagine they have lost. In fact, who can measure the salutary influence which the sacred ceremonies with which the Catholic Church celebrates the consecration of a virgin to God, must have exercised on female morals! Who can calculate the holy thoughts, the chaste inspirations which have gone forth from those silent abodes of modesty, erected sometimes in solitary places, and sometimes in crowded cities! Do you not believe that the virgin whose heart begins to be agitated by an ardent passion, that the matron who has allowed dangerous feelings to enter her soul, have not often found their passions restrained by the remembrance of a sister, a relative, a friend, who, in one of these silent abodes, raises her pure heart to Heaven, offering as a holocaust to the Divine Son of the blessed Virgin all the enchantments of youth and beauty? All this cannot be calculated, it is true; but this, at least, is certain, that no thought of levity, no inclination to sensuality has arisen therefrom. All this cannot be estimated; but can we estimate the salutary influence exercised by the morning dew upon plants? can we estimate the vivifying effect of light upon nature? and can we understand how the water which filters through the bowels of the earth fertilizes it by producing fruits and flowers? There is, then, an infinity of causes of which we cannot deny the existence and the power, but which it is nevertheless impossible to submit to rigorous examination. The cause of the impotence of every work exclusively emanating from the mind of man is, that his mind is incapable of embracing the ensemble of the relations which exist in facts of this kind; it is impossible for him to appreciate properly the indirect influences-sometimes hidden, sometimes imperceptible-which act there with an infinite delicacy. This is the reason why time dispels so many illusions, belies so many prognostics, proves the weakness of what was reckoned strong, and the strength of what was considered weak. Indeed, time brings to light a thousand relations, the existence of which was not suspected, and puts into action a thousand causes which were either unknown or despised: the results advance in their development, appearing every day in a more evident manner, until at length we find ourselves in such a situation that we can no longer shut our eyes to the evidence of facts, or any longer evade their force. One of the greatest mistakes made by the opponents of Catholicity is this. They can only see things under one aspect; they do not understand how a force can act otherwise than in a straight line; they do not see that the moral world, as well as the physical, is composed of relations infinitely varied, and of indirect influences, sometimes acting with more force than if they were direct. All form a system correlative and harmonious, the parts of which it is necessary to avoid separating, more than is absolutely needful for becoming acquainted with the hidden and delicate ties which connect the whole. It is necessary, moreN2 150 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. over, to allow for the action of time, that indispensable element in all complete development, in every lasting work. I trust I shall be pardoned for this short digression, necessary for the inculcation of the great truths which have not been sufficiently attended to in examining the great institutions founded by Catholicity. Philosophy is now compelled to withdraw propositions advanced too boldly, and to modify principles applied too generally. It would have avoided this trouble and mortification by being cautious and circumspect in its investigations. In league with Protestantism, it declared deadly war against the great Catholic institutions; it loudly appealed against moral and religious centralization. And now a unanimous shout is raised from all quarters of the world in favour of the principle of unity The instinct of nations seeks for it; philosophers examine the secrets of science to discover it. Vain efforts! No other foundation can be established than that which is already laid; duration depends upon solidity. CHAPTER XXVII. OF CHIVALRY AND BARBARIAN MANNERS, IN THEIR INFLUENCE ON THE CONDITION OF WOMEN. AN indefatigable zeal for the sanctity of marriage, and an anxious solicitude to carry the principle of modesty to the highest degree of delicacy, are the two rules which have guided Catholicity in her efforts for the elevation of woman. These are the two great means she has employed in attaining her object, and hence comes the influence and importance of women in Europe. M. Guizot is, therefore, wrong in saying that "it is to the development, to the necessary preponderance of domestic manners in the feudal system, that this change, this improvement in their condition is chiefly owing." I will not discuss the greater or less influence of the feudal system on the development of European manners. Undoubtedly when the feudal lord " shall have his wife, his children, and scarcely any others in his house, they alone will form his permanent society; they alone will share his interests, his destiny. It is impossible for domestic influence not to acquire great power." (LeSon 4.) But if the lord, returning to his castle, found one wife there, and not many, to what was that owing? Who forbade him to abuse his power by turning his house into a harem? Who bridled his passions and prevented his making victims of his timid vassals? Surely these were the doctrines and morals introduced into Europe, and deeply rooted there by the Catholic Church; it was the strict laws which she imposed as a barrier to the invasions of the passions; therefore, even if we suppose that feudality did produce this good, it is still owing to the Catholic Church. That which has no doubt tended to exaggerate the influence of feudality in all that raises and ennobles women, is a fact that appears very evidently at that period, and is dazzling at first sight. This is the brilliant spirit of chivalry, which, rising out of the bosom of the feudal system, and rapidly diffusing itself, produced the most heroic actions, gave birth to a literature rich in imagination and feeling, and contributed in great measure to soften and humanize the savage manners of the feudal lords. This period is particularly distinguished for the spirit of gallantry; not the gallantry which consists generally in the tender relations of the two sexes, but a greatly exaggerated gallantry on the part of man, combining, in a remarkable way, the most heroic courage with the most lively faith and the most ardent religion. God and his lady; such is the constant thought of the knight; this absorbs all his faculties, occupies all his time, and fills up all his existence. As long as he can obtain a victory over the infi PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 151 dels, and is supported by the hope of offering at the feet of his lady the trophies of his triumph, no sacrifice costs him any thing, no journey fatigues, no danger affrights, no enterprise discourages him. His excited imagination transports him into a world of fancy; his heart is on fire; he undertakes all, he finishes all; and the man who has just fought like a lion on the plains of Spain, or of Palestine, melts like wax at the name of the idol of his heart; then he turns his eyes amorously towards his country, and is intoxicated with the idea that one day, sighing under the castle of his beloved, he may obtain a pledge of her affection, or a promise of love. Woe to any one who is bold enough to dispute his treasure, or indiscreet enough to fix his eyes on those battlements. The lioness who has been robbed of her cubs is not more terrible, the forest torn to pieces by the hurricane is not more agitated than his heart; nothing can stop his vengeance, he must destroy his rival or die. In examining this mixture of mildness and ferocity, of religion and passion, which, no doubt, has been exaggerated by the fancies of chroniclers and troubadours, but which must have had a real type, we shall observe that it was very natural at that time, and that it is not so contradictory as it appears at first sight. Indeed, nothing was more natural than violent passions among men whose ancestors, not long before, had come from the forests of the north to pitch their bloody tents on the site of ruined cities; nothing was more natural than that there should be no other judge than strength of arm among men whose only profession was war, and who lived in an embryo society, where there was no public law strong enough to restrain private passions. Nothing, too, was more natural to those men than; lively sense of religion, for religion was the only power which they acknowledged; she had enchanted their imaginations by the splendour and magnificence of her temples, by the majesty and pomp of her worship. She had filled them with astonishment, by placing before their eyes the most sublime virtue, by addressing them in language as lofty as it was sweet and insinuating; language, no doubt, imperfectly understood by them, but which, nevertheless, convinced them of the holiness and divinity of the Christian mysteries and precepts, inspired them with respect and admiration, and also exercising a powerful influence on their minds, enkindled enthusiasm and produced heroism. Thus we see that all that was good in this exalted sentiment emanated from religion; if we take away faith, we shall find nothing but the barbarian, who knew no other law than his spear, and no other rule of conduct than the inspirations of his fiery soul. The more we penetrate into the spirit of chivalry and examine in particular the feelings which it professed towards women, the more we shall see that, instead of raising them, it supposes them already raised and surrounded by respect. Chivalry does not give a new place to women; it finds them already honoured and respected; and indeed, if it were not so, how could it imagine a gallantry so exaggerated, so fantastical? But if we imagine to ourselves the beauty of a virgin covered by the veil of Christian modesty; if we imagine this charm increased by illusion, we shall then understand the madness of the knight. If we imagine, at the same time, the virtuous matron, the companion of man, the mother of a family, the only woman in whom were concentrated all the affections of husband and children, the Christian wife, we shall understand why the knight was intoxicated at the mere idea of obtaining so much happiness, why his love was more than a sensual feeling, it was a respect, a veneration, a worship. It has been attempted to find the origin of this kind of worship in the manners of the Germans; on the strength of some expressions of Tacitus, the social amelioration of woman's lot has been attributed to the respect with which the barbarians surrounded her. M. Guizot rejects this assertion, and justly combats it by observing that what Tacitus tells us of the Germans was not exclusively applicable to them, since' phrases similar to those of Tacitus, and 152 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. sentiments and customs analogous to those of the ancient Germans, are ment with in the statements of many observers of savage or barbarous nations." Yet in spite of this wise remark, the same opinion has been maintained: it is necessary, then, to combat it again. The passage of Tacitus is this: " Inesse quin etiam sanctum aliquid et providum putant, nec aut consilia eorum aspernantur, aut responsa negligunt. Vidimus sub Divo Vespasiano Velledam diu apud plerosque numinis loco habitare." (De Mor. Germ.) " They go so far as to think that there is in women something holy and prophetical; they do not despise their counsels, and they listen to their predictions. In the time of the divine Vespasian, we have seen the greater part of them for a long time regard Velleda as a goddess." It seems to me that it is mistaking the passage of Tacitus, to extend its meaning to domestic manners, and to see in it a trait of married life. If we attend to the historian's words, we shall see that such an explanation is far from his idea. His words only relate to the superstition which made the people attribute to some women the prophetic character. Even the example chosen by Tacitus serves to show the truth and justness of this observation. " Velleda," he says, " was regarded as a goddess." In another part of his works, Tacitus explains his idea by telling us, of this same Velleda, " that this girl of the nation of Bructeres enjoyed great power, owing to an ancient custom among the Germans, which made them look upon many women as prophetesses, and, in fine, with the progress of superstition, as real divinities." " Ea virgo nationis Bructerae late imperitabat, vetere apud Germanos more quo plerasque foeminarum fatidicas et augescente superstitione arbitrantur deas." (Hist. 4.) The text which I have just quoted proves to demonstration that Tacitus speaks of superstition and not of family regulations, very different things; as it might easily happen that some women were regarded as divinities, while the rest of their sex only occupied a place in society inferior to that which belonged to them. At Athens, great importance was given to the priestesses of Ceres; at Rome to the Vestals, the Pythonesses; and the history of the Sibyls shows that it was not peculiar to the Germans to attribute the prophetical character to women. It is not for me now to explain the cause of these facts; it is enough for my purpose to state them; perhaps, on this point, physiology might throw light on the philosophy of history. When Tacitus, in the same work, describes the severity of the manners of the Germans with respect to marriage, it is easy to observe that the order of superstition and the order of the family were among them very different. We have no longer here any thing of the sanctum et providum; we find only a jealous austerity in maintaining the line of duty; and we see woman, instead of being regarded as a goddess, given up to the vengeance of the husband, if she has been unfaithful. This curious passage proves that the power of man over woman was not much limited by the customs of the Germans. "Accisis crinibus," says Tacitus, "nudatam coram propinquis expellit domo maritus, ac per omnem vicum verbere agit." "After having cut off her hair, the husband drives her from his house in presence of her relations, and beats her with rods ignominiously through the village." Certainly this punishment gives us an idea of the infamy which was attached to adultery among the Germans; but it was little calculated to increase the respect entertained for them publicly; this would have been greater had they been stoned to death. When we read in Tacitus the description of the social state of the Germans, we must not forget that some traits of their manners are purposely embellished by him, which is very natural for a writer of his sentiments. We must not forget that Taci us was indignant and afflicted at the sight of the fearful corruption of manners at that time in Rome. He paints, it is true, in glowing 3olours, the sanctity of marriage among the Germans; but who does not see PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 153'that, when doing so, he had before his eyes matrons who, according to Seneca, reckoned their years not by the succession of consuls, but by change of husbands, and women without a shadow of modesty, given up to the greatest profligacy? We can easily see to whom he alludes when he makes these severe remarks: "Nemo enim illic vitia ridet, nec corrumpere et corrumpi sseculum vocatur." " There vice is not laughed at, and corruption is not called the fashion." A strong expression, which describes the age, and explains to us the secret joy with which Tacitus cast in the face of Rome, so refined and so corrupted, the pure image of German manners. That which sharpened the raillery of Juvenal and evenomed his bitter satires, excited the indignation of Tacitus, and drew from his grave philosophy these severe reprimands. Other information which we possess shows us that the pictures of Tacitus are embellished, and that the manners of this people were far from being as pure as he wishes to persuade us. Perhaps they may have been strict with respect to marriage; but it is certain that polygamy was not unknown among them. Caesar, an eyewitness, relates, that the German king Ariovistus had two wives (de Bello Gallicoj 1. i.); and this was not a solitary instance, for Tacitus himself tells us that a few of them had several wives at once, not on account of sensuality, but for distinction. " Exceptis admodum paucis, qui non libidine, sed ob nobilitatem, pluribus nuptiis ambiuntur." This distinction, non libidine sed ob nobilitatem, is amusing; but it is clear that the kings and nobles, under one pretence or another, allowed themselves greater liberty than the severe historian would have approved of. Who can tell what was the state of morality among those forests? If we may be allowed to conjecture by analogy, from the resemblance which may naturally be supposed to exist among the different nations of the North, what an idea might we conceive of it from certain customs of the Britons, who, in bodies of ten or twelve, had their wives in common; chiefly brothers with brothers, and fathers with sons; so that they were compelled to distinguish the families conventionally, by giving the children to him who had first married the woman I It is from Caesar, an eye-witness, that we also learn this: " Uxores habent (Britanni) deni duodenique inter se communes, et maxime fratres cum fratribus et parentes cum liberis; sed si qui sunt ex his nati, eorum habentur liberi a quibus primum virgines quaeque ductse sunt." (De Bello Gallico, 1. v.) However this may have been, it is at least certain that the principle of monogamy was not so much respected among the Germans as people have been willing to suppose; an exception was made in favour of the nobles, that is, of the powerful; and that was enough to deprive the principle of all its force, and to prepare its ruin. In such a matter, to establish an exception to the law in favour of the powerful, is almost to abrogate it. It may be said, I admit, that the powerful will never want means of violating it; but it is one thing for the powerful to violate the law, and another for the law itself to retire before them, leaving the way open: in the first case, the employment of force does not destroy the law-the very shock which breaks it, makes its existence felt, and visibly shows the wrong and injustice; in the second case, the law prostitutes itself, if I may so speak; the passions have no need of force to open for themselves a passage, the law itself opens the door for them. From that time it remains degraded and disgraced; its own baseness has undermined the moral principle on which it was founded; and, owing to its own fault, it becomes itself the subject of animadversion to those who are still compelled to observe it. Thus the right of polygamy, once recognised among the Germans in favour of the great, must, with time, have become general among the other classes of the people; and it is very probable that this was the case when the conquest )f more productive countries, the enjoyment of more genial climates, and some improvement in their social condition furnished them more abundantly with 20 154 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. the means of gratifying their inclinations. An evil so great could only be withstood by the inflexible severity of the Catholic Church. Nobles and kings still had a strong inclination towards the privileges which we have seen their predecessors enjoying before they embraced the Christian religion. Thence it came that, in the first centuries after the irruption of the barbarians, the Church had so much trouble in restraining their violent inclinations. Would not those who have endeavored to find among the Germans so large a portion of the constitutive elements of modern civilization have shown more wisdom, if they had recognised, in the manners which we have been examining, one of the causes which made the struggles between the secular princes and the Church so frequent? I do not see why we should seek in the forests of the barbarians for the origin of one of the finest attributes of our civilization, or why we should give to those nations virtues of which they showed so little evidence when they invaded the countries of the south. Without monuments, without history-almost without any index as to their social condition-it is difficult, not to say impossible, to know any thing certain with respect to their manners; but I ask, what must have been their morality, in the midst of such ignorance, such superstition, and such barbarism? The little that we know about these nations has been necessarily taken from the Roman historians; and unfortunately this is not one of the purest sources. It almost always happens that observers, especially when they are conquerors, only give some slight notions with regard to the political state of a people, and are almost silent as to their social and domestic condition. In order to form an idea of this part of the condition of a nation, it is necessary to mingle with them, and be intimate with them; now this is generally prevented by their different states of civilization, especially when the observers and the observed are exasperated against each other by long years of war and slaughter. Add to this, that, in such cases, the attention is particularly attracted by what favors or opposes the designs of the conquerors, who for the most part attach no great importance to moral subjects;. this will show us how it is that nations who are observed in this way are only superficially known, and why such statements with respect to religion and manners are unworthy of much confidence. The reader will judge whether these reflections are out of place in estimating the value of what the Romans have told us about the state of the barbarians. It is enough to fix our eyes on the scenes of blood and horror prevailing for centuries, which show us, on the one hand, the ambition of Rome, which, not content with the empire of the theti known world, wished to extend its power over the most distant forests of the North; and, on the other, the indomitable spirit of barbarian independence, breaking in pieces the chains which were attempted to be imposed upon them, and destroying, by their bold incursions, the ramparts which the skill of the Roman generals labored to raise against them. See, then, what we ought to think of barbarian society, as described by Roman historians. What shall we think, if we consult the few traits which the barbarians themselves have left us, of their manners and maxims with respect to their social condition? It is always risking much to seek in barbarism for the origin of one of the most beautiful results of civilization, and to attribute to vague and superstitious feelings what, during centuries, forms the normal state of the most advanced nations. If these noble sentiments, which are represented to us as emanating from the barbarians, really existed among them, how did they avoid perishing in the midst of their migrations and revolutions? How did they alone remain, when every thing relating to the social condition of the barbarians disappeared? These sentiments would not have been preserved in a stationary state, but we should have seen them stripped of their superstition and grossness, purified, ennobled, and made reasonable, just, salutary, chivalrous, and worthv of civi PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 155 lized nations. Such assertions have, from the first sight, the character of bold paradoxes. Certainly, when we have to explain great phenomena in the social order, it is rather more philosophical to seek for their origin in ideas which for a long time have exercised a powerful influence on society, in manners and institutions emanating from them, in laws, in fine, which have been recognised and respected for many centuries as established by Divine power. Why, then, attempt to explain the respect in which women are held in Europe, by the superstitious veneration which barbarous nations offered in their forests to Velleda, Aurinia, and Gauna? Reason and good sense tell us that the real origin of this wonderful phenomenon is not to be. found there, and that we must seek elsewhere for the causes which have contributed to produce it. History reveals to us these causes, and renders them palpable to us, by showing us facts which leave no doubt as to the source whence this powerful and salutary influence emanated. Before Christianity, woman, oppressed by the tyranny of man, was scarcely raised above the rank of slavery; her weakness condemned her to be the victim of the strong. The Christian religion, by its doctrines of fraternity in Jesus Christ, and equality before God, destroys the evil in its root, by teaching man that woman ought not to be his slave, but his companion. From that moment the amelioration of woman's lot was felt wherever Christianity was spread; and woman, as far as the degradation of ancient manners allowed, began to gather the fruit of a doctrine which was to make a complete change in her condition, by giving her a new existence. This is one of the principal causes of the amelioration of woman's lot: a sensible, palpable cause, which is easily shown without making any gratuitous supposition, a cause which is not founded on conjecture, but which appears evident on the first glance at the most notorious facts of history. Moreover, Catholicity, by the severity of its morality, by the lofty protection which it affords to the delicate feeling of modesty, corrected and. purified manners; thus it very much elevated woman, whose dignity is incompatible with corruption and licentiousness. In fine, Catholicity itself, or the Catholic Church, (and observe, I do not say Christianity,) by its firmness in establishing and preserving monogamy and the indissolubility of the marriage tie, restrained the caprices of man, and made him concentrate his affections on one wife, who could not be divorced. Thus woman passed from a state of slavery to that of the companion of man. The instrument of pleasure was changed into the mother of a family, respected by her children and servants. Thus was created in the family identity of interests; thus was guarantied the education of children, which produced the close intimacy which among us unites husband and wife, parents and children. The atrocious right of life and death was destroyed; the father had not even the right to inflict punishments too severe; and all this admirable system was strengthened by ties strong but mild, was based on the principles of sound morality, sustained by prevailing manners, guarantied and protected by the laws, fortified by reciprocal interests, sanctioned by time, and endeared by love. This is the truly satisfactory explanation of the enigma; this is the origin of the honor and dignity of woman in Europe; thence we have derived the organization of the family,-an inestimable benefit which Europeans possess without appreciating it, without being sufficiently acquainted with it, and watching over its preservation as they ought. In treating of this important matter, I have purposely distinguished between Christianity and Catholicity, in order to avoid a confusion in words, which would have entailed a confusion in things. In reality, the true, the only Christianity is Catholicity; but, unfortunately, we cannot now employ these words indiscriminately, not only on account of Protestantism, but also on account of the monstrous philosophico-Christian nomenclature which ranks Christianity among philosophical sects, as if it were nothing more than a system imagined 156 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. by man. As the principle of charity plays a great part wherever the religion of Jesus Christ is found, and as this principle is evident even to the eyes of the incredulous, philosophers who have wished to persevere in their incredulity without incurring the scandalous epithet of disciples of Voltaire, have adopted the words fraternity and humanity, to make them the theme of their instructions; they have consented to give to Christianity the chief glory'of originating its sublime ideas and generous sentiments: thus they appear not to contradict the history of the past as the philosophy of the age gone by in its madness did; but they pretend to accommodate all to the present time, and prepare the way for a greater and happier future. For these philosophers Christianity is not a divine religion; by no means. With them it is an idea, fortunate, magnificent, and fruitful in grand results, but purely human; it is the result of long and painful human labors. Polytheism, Judaism, the philosophy of the East, of Egypt, of Greece, were all preparatory to that great work. Jesus Christ, according to them, only moulded into form an idea which was in embryo in the bosom of humanity. He fixed and developed it, and, by reducing it to practice, made the human race to take a step of great importance in the path of progress into which it has entered. But, He is always, in the eyes of these philosophers, nothing more than a philosopher of Judea, as Socrates was of Greece, and Seneca of Rome. Still we should rejoice that they grant to Him this human existence, and do not transform Him into a mythological being, by considering the Gospel narrative as a mere allegory. Thus, at the present time, it is of the first importance to distinguish between Christianity and Catholicity, whenever we have to bring to light and present to the gratitude of mankind the unspeakable benefits for which they are indebted to the Christian religion. It is necessary to show that what has regenerated the world was not an idea thrown at hazard among all those who have struggled for preference and pre-eminence; but that it was a collection of truths sent from Heaven, transmitted to the human race by a God made Man, by means of a society formed and authorized by Himself, in order to perpetuate to the end of time the work which His word had established, which His miracles had sanctioned, and which He had sealed with His blood. It is consequently necessary to exhibit this society, that is, the Catholic Church, realizing in her laws and institutions the inspirations and instructions of her Divine Master, and accomplishing the lofty mission of leading men towards eternal happiness, while ameliorating their condition here below, and consoling them in this land of misfortune. In this way we form a correct idea of Christianity, if we may so speak, or rather we show it as it really is, not as men vainly represent it. And observe, that we ought never to fear for the truth, when the facts of history are fully and searchingly examined. If in the vast field into which our investigations lead us, we sometimes find ourselves in obscurity, walking for a long time in dark vaults which the rays of the sun do not visit, and there the soil under our feet threatens to swallow us up, let us fear nothing, let us advance with courage and confidence; amid the darkest windings we shall discover at a distance the light that shines upon the end of our journey; we shall see truth stated on the threshold, placidly smiling at our terrors and anxieties. To philosophers, as well as to Protestants, we would say, if Christianity were not realized in a visible society, always in contact with man, and provided with the authority necessary for teaching and guiding him, it would be only a theory, like all others that have been and still are seen on the earth; consequently it would be either altogether sterile, or at least unable to produce any of those great works which endure unimpaired for ages. Now one of these is undoubtedly Christian marriage, and the family organization which has been its immediate consequence. It would have been vain to advance notions favorable to the dignity of woman and tending to improve her lot, if the sanctity of mar PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 157 riage had not bten guarantied by a power generally acknowledged and revered. That power is continually struggling against the passions which labor to overcome it; what would have happened if they had had to contend with no other obstacle than a philosophic theory, or a religious idea without reality in society, and without power to obtain submission and obedience? We have, then, no. need of recurring to that extravagant philosophy which seeks for light in the midst of darkness, and which, on seeing order arise out of chaos, has conceived the singular notion of affirming that it was produced by it. If we find in the doctrines, in the laws of the Catholic Church the origin of the sanctity of marriage and\ the dignity of woman, why should we seek for it in the manners of brutal barbarians, who had no veil for modesty and the privacy of the nuptial couch? Let us hear Caesar speaking of the Germans: "Nulla est occultatio, quod et promiscui in fiuminibus perluuntur, et pellibus aut rhenorum tegumentis utuntur, magna corporis parte nuda." (De Bello Gall. 1. vi.) I have been obliged to oppose authority to authority; I was under the neces. sity of destroying the fantastical systems into which men have been seduced by an over love of subtilty, by the mania of finding extraordinary causes for phenomena, the origin of which may easily be discovered when we have recourse, in good faith and sincerity, to the concurring instructions of philosophy and history. It was highly necessary, in order to clear up one of the most delicate questions in the history of the human race, and to find the source of one of the most fruitful elements of European civilization. My task was nothing less than to explain the organization of families, that is, to fix one of the poles on which the axis of society turns. Let Protestafitism boast of having introduced divorce, of having deprived marriage of the beautiful and sublime character of a sacrament, of having withdrawn from the care and protection of the Church the most important act of human life; let it rejoice in having destroyed the sacred asylums of virgins consecrated to God; let it declaim against the most angelic and heroic virtue; let us, after having defended the doctrine and conduct of the Catholic Church at the tribunal of philosophy and history, conclude by appealing to the judgment, not indeed of high philosophy, but of good sense and feeling..(18) CHAPTER XXVII1. OF THE PUBLIC CONSCIENCE IN GENERAL. CWHEN enumerating, in the twentieth chapter, the characteristics which mark European civilization, I pointed out, as one of them, "an admirable public conscience, rich in sublime maxims of morality, in rules of justice and equity, in sentiments of honor and dignity, a conscience which survives the shipwreck of private morality, and does not allow the open corruption to go so far as it did in ancient times." We must now explain more at length in what this public conscience consists, what is its origin, what are its results, showing at the same time what share Catholicity and Protestantism have had in its formation. This delicate and important question is, I will venture to say, untouched; at least I do not know that it has yet been attempted. Men constantly speak of the excellence of Christian morality, and on this point all the sects, all the schools of Europe are agreed; but they do not pay sufficient attention to the way in which that morality has become predominant, by first destroying Pagan corruption, then by maintaining itself for centuries in spite of the ravages of infidelity, so as to form an admirable public conscience; a benefit which we now enjoy without appreciating it as we ought, and without even thinking of it 0 158 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. In order fully to comprehend this matter, it is above all necessary to form a clear idea of what is meant by conscience. Conscience in the general, or rather idealogical sense of the word, means the knowledge which each man has of his own acts. Thus we say that the soul is conscious of its thoughts, of the acts of its will, and of its sensations; so that the word conscience, taken in this sense, expresses a perception of what we do and feel. Applied to the moral order, this word signifies the judgment which we ourselves form of our actions as good or evil. Thus, when we are about to perform an action, conscience points it out to us as good or bad, and consequently lawful or unlawful; and it thus directs our conduct. The action being performed, it tells us whether we have done well or ill, it excuses or condemns us, it rewards us with peace of mind, or punishes us with remorse. Tilis explanation being given, we shall easily understand what is meant by public conscience; it is nothing but the judgment formed of their actions by the generality of men. It results from this that, like private conscience, the public conscience may be right or wrong, strict or relaxed; and that there must be differences on this point among societies of men, the same as there are among individuals; that is to say, that, as in the same society we find men whose consciences are more or less right or wrong, more or less strict or relaxed, we must also find societies superior to others in the justice of the judgment which they form on actions, and in the delicacy of their moral appreciation. If we.observe closely, we shall see that individual conscience is the result of widely different causes. It is an error to suppose that conscience resides solely in the intelligence; it is also rooted in the heart. It is a judgment, it is true; but we judge of things in a very different way according to the manner in which we feel them. Add to this, that the feelings have an immense influence on moral ideas and actions; the.result is, that conscience is formed under the influence of all the causes which forcibly act on our hearts. Communicate to two children the same moral principles, by teaching them from the same book and under the same master; but suppose that one in his own family sees what he is taught constantly practised, while the other sees there nothing but indifference to it; suppose, moreover, that these two children grow up with the same moral and religious conviction, so that as far as the intellect is concerned there is no difference between them; nevertheless, do you believe that their judgment of the morality of actions will be the same? By no means; and why? Because the one has only convictions, while the other has also feelings. In the one, the doctrine enlightens the mind; while, in the other, example engraves it constantly on the heart. Thus what one regards with indifference, the other looks upon with horror; what the one does with negligence, the other performs with the greatest care; and the same subject that to one is of slight interest, is to the other of the highest importance. Public conscience, which, in fact, is the sum of private consciences, is subject to the same influences as they are; so that mere instruction is not enough for it, and it requires the concurrence of other causes to act on the heart, as well as the mind. When we compare Christian with pagan society, we instantly see thatthe former must be infinitely superior to the latter on this point; not only on account of the purity of its morality, and the strength of the principles and motives sanctioning it, but also because it follows the wise course of continually inculcating this morality, and impressing it strongly on the mind by constant repetition. By this constant repetition of the same truths, Christianity has done what other religions never could do; none of them, indeed, have ever succeeded in organizing and putting into practice so important a system. But I have said enough on this point in the fourteenth chapter; it is useless to repeat it here; I pass on to some observations on the public conscience in Europe. PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATIOLICITY. 159 It cannot be denied that, generally speaking, reason and justice prevail in that public conscience. If you examine laws and actions, you will not find those shocking acts of injustice or those revolting immoralities which are to be met with among other nations. There are certainly evils, and very grave ones, but they are at least acknowledged, and called by their right names. We do not hear good called evil, or evil good; that is to say, society, in certain things, is like those persons of good principles and bad morals who are the first to acknowledge that their conduct is blamable, and that their words and deeds contradict each other. We often lament the corruption of morals, the profligacy of our large towns; but what is all the corruption and profligacy of modern society compared with the debauchery of the ancients? It certainly cannot be denied that there is a fearful extent of dissoluteness in some of the capitals of Europe. the records of the police, as well as those of the benevolent establishments where the fruits of crime are received, show shocking demoralization. In the highest classes dreadful ravages are caused by conjugal infidelity, and all sorts of dissipation and disorder; yet these excesses are very far from reaching the extent which they did among the best-governed nations of antiquity, the Greeks and Romans. So that our society, which we so bitterly lament, would have appeared to them a model of modesty and decorum. Need we call to mind the infamous vices then so common and so public, and which have scarcely a name among us now, whether it be because they are so rarely committed, or because the fear of public conscience forces them to hide themselves in the dark places, and, so to speak, in the bowels of the earth? Need we recall to mind the infamies which stain the writings of the ancients as often as they describe the manners of their times? Names illustrious in science and in arms have passed down to posterity with stains so black that we cannot consent to describe them. Now, how corrupt must have been the state of the other classes, when such degradation was attributed to men who, by their elevated positions or other circumstances, were the lights of society! You talk of the avarice which is so prevalent now-a-days; but look at the usurers of antiquity who sucked the blood of the people everywhere; read the satirical poets, and you will see what was the state of manners on this point; consult, in fine, the annals of the Church, and you will see what pains she took to diminish the effects of this vice; read the history of ancient Rome, and you will find the cursed-thirst for gold, and lenders without mercy, who, after having impudently robbed, carried in triumph the fruits of their rapine to live with scandalous ostentation, and buy votes again to raise them to command. No, in European civilization, among nations taught and elevated by Christianity, such evils would not be long tolerated. If we suppose administrative disorder, tyranny, and corruption of morals carried as far as you please, still public opinion would raise its voice and frown on the oppressors. Partial injustice may be committed, but rapine will never be formed into a shameless system, or be regarded as the rule of government. Rely upon it, the words justice, morality, humanity, which constantly resound in our midst, are not vain words; this language produces great results; it -destroys immense evils. These ideas impregnate the atmosphere we breathe; they frequently restrain the arm of criminals, and resist with incredible force materialistic and utilitarian doctrines; they continue to exert an incalculable influence on society. We have among us a feeling of morality which mollifies and governs all; which is so powerful that vice is compelled to assume the appearance of virtue, and cover itself with many veils, in order to escape becoming the subject of public execration. Modern society, it would seem, ought to have inherited the corruption of the old, since it was formed out of its ruins, at a time when its morals were most dissolute. We must observe, that the irruption of the barbarians, far from improving society, contributed, on the contrary, to make it worse; and this,.not 160 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. only on account of the corruption belonging to their-fierce and brutal manners, but also on account of the disorder introduced among the nations they invaded, by violating laws, throwing their manners and customs into confusion, and destroying all authority. Whence it follows, that the improvement of public opinion among modern nations is a very singular fact; and that this progress can only be attributed to the influence of the active and energetic principle which has existed in the bosom of Europe for so many centuries. Let us observe the conduct of the Church on this point-it is perhaps one of the most important facts in the history of the middle ages. Imagine an age when corruption and injustice most unblushingly raised their heads, and you will see that, however impure and disgusting the fact may be, the law is always pure; that is to say, that reason and justice always found some one to proclaim them, even when they appeared to be listened to by nobody. The state of ignorance was the darkest, licentious passions were uncontrolled; but the instructions and admonitions of the Church were never wanting; it is thus that, amidst the darkest night, the lighthouse shines from afar, to guide the mariners in safety. When in reading the history of the Church we see on all sides assembled councils proclaiming the principles of the gospel morality, while at every step we meet with the most scandalous proceedings; when we constantly hear inculcated the laws which are so often trodden under foot, it is natural to ask, of what use was all this, and of what benefit were instructions thus unheeded? Let us not believe that these proclamations were useless, nor lose courage if we have to wait long for their fruits. A principle which is proclaimed for a long time in society will in the end acquire influence; if it is true, and consequently contains an element of life, it will prevail in the end over all that opposes it, and will rule over all around it. Allow, then, the truth to speak-allow it to protest continually; this will prevent the prescription of vice. Thus vice will preserve its proper name; and you will prevent misguided men from deifying their passions, and placing them on their altars after having adored them in their hearts. Be confident that this protest will not be useless. Truth in the end will be victorious and triumphant; for the protests of truth are the voice of God condemning the usurpations of His creatures. This is what really happened; Christian morality, first contending with the corrupt manners of the empire, and afterwards with the brutality of the barbarians, had for-centuries rude shocks to sustain; but at last it triumphed over all, and succeeded in governing legislation and public morals. We do not mean to say that it succeeded in raising law and morals to the degree of perfection which the purity of the gospel morality required, but at least it did away the most shocking injustice; it banished the most savage customs; it restrained the license of the most shameless manners.; it everywhere gave vice its proper name; it painted it in its real colors, and prevented its being deified as impudently as it was among the ancients. In modern times, it has had to contend against the school which proclaims that private interest is the only principle of morals; it has not been able, it is true, to prevent this fatal doctrine from causing great evils, but at least it has sensibly diminished them: Unhappy for the world will be the day when men shall say without disguise, "My own advantage is my virtue; my honor is what is useful to myself; all is good or evil, according as it is pleasing or displeasing to me." Unhappy for the world will be the day when such language will no longer be repudiated by public conscience. The opportunity now presenting itself, and wishing to explain so important a matter as fully as possible, I will make some observations on an opinion of Montesquieu respecting the censors of Greece and Rome. This digression will not be foreign to the purpose. 161 CHAPTER XXIX. OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PUBLIC CONSCIENCE ACCORDING TO MONTESQUIEUHONOR-VIRTUE. MONTESQUIEU has said that republics are preserved by virtue, and monarchies by honor. He observes, moreover, that honor renders the censors, who were required among the ancients, unnecessary among us. True it is, that in modern times there are no censors charged with watching over the public morals; but the cause of this is not as stated by this famous publicist. Among Christian nations, the ministers of religion are the. natural censors of public morals The plenitude of this office belongs to the Church, with this difference, that the censorial power of the ancients was purely civil, while that of the Church is a religious power, which has its origin and sanction in divine authority. The religion of Greece and Rome neither did, nor could, exercise this censorial power over morals. To be convinced of this, it is enough to read the passage from St. Augustine, quoted in the fourteenth chapter-a passage so interesting on this matter, that I will venture to ask the reader to peruse it again. This is the reason why we find among the Greeks and Romans censors who are not seen among Christian nations. These censors were an addition to the Pagan religion, the impotence of which they clearly showed-a religion which was mistress of society, and yet could not fulfil one of the first duties of all religionsthat of watching over the public morals. What I assert is so perfectly true, that in proportion as the influence of religion and the ascendency of its ministers have been lowered among modern nations, the ancient censors have reappeared in some sort in the institution of police. When moral means are wanting, it is necessary to have recourse to physical ones; violence is substituted for persuasion, and instead of a zealous and charitable missionary, delinquents Call into the hands of the ministers of public justice. Much has been already written of the system of Montesquieu, with respect to the principles on which the different forms of government are based; but perhaps sufficient attention has not been paid to the phenomenon which has served to mislead him. As this question is intimately connected with the point which I have just touched upon, in relation to the existence of the censorial authority, I shall explain myself at some length. In the time of Montesquieu, the Christian religion was not so fully understood as it now is with respect to its social importance; and although on this point the author of the Esprit d~e Lois has done homage to her, it is well to remember what were his antichristian prejudices during his youth, and also that this work is still far from rendering to the true religion what is due to her. The ideas of an irreligious philosophy which, some years later, misled so many fine intellects, had begun at that time to gain the ascendant, and Montesquieu had not sufficient strength ot mind to make a decided opposition to the prejudices which threatened universal dominion. To this cause we must add another, which, although distinct from the last, yet had the same origin, viz. a prejudice in favor of all that was old, and a blind admiration for every thing Roman or Grecian.. It seemed to the philosophers of that time, that social and political perfection had reached their greatest height among the ancients, that there was nothing to be added to or Taken from it, and that even in religion the fables and festivals of antiquity were a thousand times preferable to the faith and worship of the Christian religion. In the eyes of the new philosophers, the heaven of the Apocalypse could not sustain a comparison with that of the Elysian fields; the hlajesty of Jehovah was inferior to that of Jupiter; all the loftiest Christian institutions were a legacy of ignorance and fanaticism; the most holy and beneficent institutions were the work of tortuous and interested views-the vehicle and expression of 21 o 2 162 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. sordid interests; public authority was only an atrocious tyranny; and the only noble, just, and salutary institutions were those of Paganism. There every thing was wise, and evinced profound designs highly advantageous to society; the ancients alone had enjoyed social advantages, and had succeeded in organizing public authority, with guarantees for the liberty of citizens. Modern nations should Jbitterly lament not being able to mingle in the agitation of the forum, being deprived of such orators as Demosthenes and Cicero,-having no Olympic games, or contests of athletem; in fine, they must always regret a religion which, although full of illusion and falsehood, gave to all nature a dramatic interest, gave life to fountains, rivers, cascades, and seas, peopled the fields, the meadows, and the woods with beautiful nymphs, gave to man gods as the companions of his hearth, and above all, knew how to render life pleasant and charming, by giving full scope to all the passions, and deifying them under the most enchanting forms. How, in the midst of such prejudices, was it possible to discover the truth in modern institutions? Every thing was in the most deplorable state of confusion; all that was established was condemned without appeal, and every one who attempted to defend it was considered a fool or a knave. Religion and political constitutions, which seemed destined soon to disappear, could reckon on no other support than the prejudices or the interests of governments. Lamentable aberration of the human mind! What would these writers now say if they could arise from their tombs? And yet a century has not yet elapsed since the epoch when their school began to acquire its influence. They have, for a long time, ruled the world at their pleasure; and they have only shed torrents of blood, heaping lesson upon lesson, and deception upon deception, in the history of humanity. But let us return to Montesquieu. This publicist, who was so much affected by the atmosphere in which he lived, and who had no small share in perverting the age, saw the facts which are here so apparent; he recognised the results of that public opinion which has been created among European nations by the influence of Christianity. But while observing the effects, he did not ascertain the real causes, and labored in every way to accommodate them to his own system. In comparing ancient with modern society, he discovered between them a remarkable difference in the conduct of men; he observed that we see accomplished among us the noblest and most heroic actions, while we avoid a great part of the vices which defile the ancients; but, on the other hand, Montesquieu, like others, could not help seeing that men among us have not always that high moral aim which ought to be the motive of their laudable conduct. Avarice, ambition, love of pleasure, and other passions, still reign in the world, and are easily discovered everywhere. Still these passions do not reach the excess they did among the ancients; there is a mysterious power which restrains them; before giving way to their impulses, they throw a cautious glance around them, and do not indulge in certain excesses unless they are sure of being able to do so in secret. They have great dread of being seen by man; they can only live in solitude and darkness. The author of the Esprit des Lois asked himself what is the cause of this phenomenon. Men, he said to himself, often act, not from moral virtue, but from respect for the judgment which other men will pass upon their actions; this is to act from honor. Now, this is the case in France and in the other monarchies of Europe; it must be, therefore, the distinctive characteristic of monarchical governments; it must be the base of that form of government, the distinction between a republic and despotism. Let us hear the author himself: " Dans quel governement," says he, " faut il des censeurs? II en faut dans une republique, oh le principe du governement est la vertu. Ce ne sont pas seulement les crimes qui detruisent la vertu, mais encore les negligences, les fautes, une certaine ti6deur dans l'amour de la patrie, des exemples PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 163 dangereux, des semences de corruption; ce qui ne choque point les lois, mats les elude; ce qui ne les detruit pas, mais les affaiblit. Tout cela doit etre corrig6 par les censeurs. * * * Dans les monarchies il ne faut point de censeurs, elles sont fondles sur l'honneur; et la nature de l'honneur est d'avoir pour censeur tout l'univers. Tout homme qui y manque est soumis aux reproches de ceux memes qui n'en ont point." (De I'Esprit des Lois, liv. v. chap. 19.) Such is the opinion of this publicist. But if we reflect on the matter, we shall see that he was wrong in transferring to politics, and explaining by simply political causes, a fact purely social. Montesquieu points out, as the distinguishing charactecristic of monarchies, what is the general characteristic of all modern European society; he seenm not to have understood why the institution of censors was not necessary in Europe, any more than he did the real reason why they were required among the ancients. Monarchical forms have not exclusively prevailed in Europe. Powerful republics have existed there; and there are still some not to be despised Monarchy itself has undergone numerous modifications; it has been allied sometimes with democracy, sometimes with aristocracy; sometimes its power has been very limited, and sometimes it has been unbounded; and yet we always find this restraint which Montesquieu speaks of, and which he calls honor; that is, a powerful influence stimulating to good deeds and deterring from bad, and all this from respect for the judgments which other men will pass. "Dans les monarchies," says Montesquieu, "il ne faut point de censeurs, elles sont fondees sur l'honneur; et la nature de l'honneur est d'avoir pour censeur tout l'univers;" remarkable words, which reveal to us the ideas of the writer, and at the same time show us the origin of his mistake. They will assist us in solving the enigma. In order to explain this point as fully as the importance of the subject requires, and with as much clearness as the multitude and intri cacy of its relations demand, I shall endeavour to convey my ideas with as much precision as possible. Respect for the judgment of others is a feeling innate in man; consequently it is in his nature to do or avoid many things on account of this judgment. All this is founded on the simple fact of self-love: this is nothing but love of our own good fame, the desire of appearing to advantage, and the fear of appearing to disadvantage, in the eyes of our fellows. These things are so simple and clear, that they do not require or even admit of proofs or comments. Honor is a stimulant more or less active, or a restraint more or less powerful, according to the degree of severity which we expect in the judgments of others. Thus it is that the miser, when among the generous, makes an effort to appear liberal; the prodigal restrains himself in the presence of the lovers of strict economy; in meetings where decorum generally reigns we see that even libertines control themselves, while men whose mannrers are usually correct allow themselves certain freedoms in licentious societies. Now the society in which we live is, as it were, one vast conmpany. If we know that strict principles prevail there, if we hear everywhere proclaimed the rules of sound morality, if we think that the generality of the men with whom we live give the right natne to every action, without allowing the irregularity of their conduct to falsify their judgment, we see ourselves surrounded on all sides by witnesses and judges who cannot be corrupted; and this checks us at every step when we wish to do evil, and urges us on when we wish to do good. It will be far otherwise if we have reason to expect indulgence from the society in which we move. In this'case, and, supposing us all to entertain the same convictions, vice will not appear to us so horrible, crime so detestable, or corruption so disgusting; our ideas with regard to the morality of our conduct will be very different, and in the end our actions will show the fatal influence of the atmosphere in which we live. It follows from this, that, in order to infuse into our hearts a feeling of honor strong enough to produce good, it is necessary that principles of sound morality should regulate society 164 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. and that they should be generally and fully believed. This beilg granted, social habits will be formed, which will regulate manners; and even if these habits do not succeed in hindering the corruption of a great number of individuals, they will, nevertheless, be sufficient to compel vice to adopt certain disguises, which, although hypocritical, will not fail to add to the decorum of manners. The salutary effects of these habits will still continue after the faith on which their moral principles are based has been considerably weakened, and society will still gather in abundance the beneficent fruits of the despised or forgotten tree. This is the history of the morality of modern nations: although lamentably corrupt, they are still not so bad as the ancients. They preserve in their legislation, and in their morals, a fund of morality and dignity which the ravages of irreligion have not been able to destroy. Public opinion never dies; every day it censures vice, and extols the beauty and advantages of virtue; it reigns over governments and nations, and exercises the powerful ascendency of an element which is found universally diffused. "Outre l'Areopage," says Montesquieu, "il y avait k Athenes des gardiens des mceurs et des gardiens des lois. A Lac6demone, tous les vieillards etaient censeurs. A Rome, deux magistrats particuliers avaient la censure. Comme le Senat veille sur le peuple, il faut que des censeurs aient les yeux sur le peuple et sur le Senat. 11 faut qu'ils r6tablissent dans la republique tout ce qui a et6 corrumpu, qu'ils notent la tiedeur, jugent les negligences, et corrigent les fautes, cornime les lois punissent les crimes." (De l'Esprit des Lois, liv. v. chap. 7.) In describing the duties of the censors of antiquity, the author seems to state the functions of religious authority. To penetrate where the civil laws do not extend; to correct, and in some measure to chastise, what they leave unpunished; to exercise over society an influence more delicate and minute than that' which belongs to legislation,-such are the objects of the censorial power; and who does not see that that power has been replaced by religious authority? and that if the former has been unnecessary among modern nations, it is owing to the existence of the latter, or to the influence which it has exercised for many centuries? It cannot be denied that religious authority has for a long time gained a decided ascendency over men's minds and hearts; this fact is written in every page of the history of Europe. As to the results of that influence, so calumniated and ill understood, we meet with them every day,-we who see the principles of justice and sound morality still reigning over public conscience, in spite of the ravages which irreligion and immorality have committed among individuals. The powerful influence of public conscience will be best explained by some examples. Let us suppose that the richest of nobles, or the most powerful of monarchs, indulged in the abominable excesses of a Tiberius, a Nero, or the other monsters who disgraced the imperial throne, what would happen? We will not predict; but we are confident that the universal shout of indignation and horror would be so loud, and the monster would be so crushed under the load of public execration, that it appears to us impossible for him to exist. It seems to us an anachronism, an impossibility at this time. Even if we admit that there might be men immoral enough to commit such enormities, sufficiently perverted in mind and heart to exhibit such depravity, we see that it would be an outrage against universal morals, and that such a spectacle could not stand for a moment in presence of public opinion. I could draw numberless contrasts, but I shall content myself with one, which, while it reminds us of a fine trait in ancient history, exhibits, with the virtue of a hero, the manners of the time and the melancholy condition of the public conscience. Let us suppose that a general of modern Europe captures by assault a town in which a distinguished lady, the wife of one of the principal leaders of the enemy, falls into the hands PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 165 of the soldiers. The beautiful prisoner is brought to the general; what should be his conduct? Every one will immediately say, that she ought to be treated with the most delicate attention, that she ought to be immediately set at liberty and allowed to rejoin her husband. Such conduct appears to us so strictly obligatory, so much according to the order of things, and so conformable to our ideas and sentiments, that there certainly does not appear to us to be any peculiar merit in adopting it. We should say that the general had performed a strict and sacred duty, which he could not evade without covering himself with shame and ignominy. We certainly should not immortalize such an action in history; we should allow it to pass unnoticed in the ordinary course of events. Now, this is what Scipio did with respect to the wife of Mardonius at the taking of Carthagena; and ancient history records this generosity as an eternal monument of his virtues. This parallel explains better than any commentary the immense progress of morality and public conscience under the influence of Christianity. Now, such conduct, which among us is considered as simple, natural, and strictly obligatory, does not flow from the honor belonging to monarchies, as Montesquieu asserts, but from more lofty notions of human dignity, from a clearer knowledge of the true state of society, from a morality the purer and more powerful because it is established on eternal foundations. This, indeed, is found and felt everywhere, it governs the good and is respected even by the bad; this is what would stop the licentious man, who, in a case of this sort, would be inclined to indulge his cruelty or his other passions. The author of the Esprit des Lois would doubtless have perceived these truths if he had not been prejudiced by the favorite distinction established at the beginning of his work, and which throughout bound him to an inflexible system. We know what a preconceived system isone that serves as the mould for a work. Like the bed of Procrustus, ideas and facts, right or wrong, are accommodated to the system; what is too much is taken away, and what is wanting is added. Thus Montesquieu finds in political motives, founded on the republican form of government, the reason for the power exercised over Roman women by their husbands. The cruel rights given to fathers over their children, the unlimited paternal power established by the Roman laws, also appeared to him to flow from political causes, as if it were not evident that these two regulations of the ancient Roman law were owing to causes purely domestic and social, altogether independent of the form of government. (19) CHAPTER XXX. ON THE DIFFERENT INFLUENCE OF PROTESTANTISM AND CATHOLICITY ON THE PUBLIC CONSCIENCE. WE have defined the nature of public conscience; we have pointed out its origin and effects. It now remains to examine whether Protestantism has had any share in forming it, and whether it is fairly entitled to the glory of having been of any service to European civilization on this point. We have already shown that the origin of this public conscience is to be found in Christianity. Now Christianity may be considered under two aspects-as a doctrine, and as an institution intended to realize that doctrine; that is to say, Christian morality may be considered in itself, or as taught and inculcated by the Church. To form the public conscience, and make Christian morality regulate it, it was not enough to announce this doctrine; there was still required a society, not only to preserve it in all its purity, that it might be transmitted from generation to generation, but to preach it incessantly to man, and apply it continually to all 166 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. the acts of life. We must observe that ideas, however powerful they may be, have only a precarious existence until they are realized, and become embodied, as it were, in an institution which, while it is animated, moved, and guided by them, serves them as a rampart against the attacks of other ideas and other interests. Man is formed of body and soul; the whole world is a collection of spiritual and corporeal beings-a system of moral and physical relations; thus it is that all ideas, even the greatest and the loftiest, begin to fall into oblivion when they have no outward expression-no organ by which they make themselves heard and respected. They are then confounded and overwhelmed amid the confusion of the world, and in the end disappear altogether. Therefore, all ideas that are to have a lasting influence on society, necessarily tend to create an institution to represent them, in which they may be personified; not satisfied with addressing themselves to the mind, and with descending to practice by indirect means, they seek to give form to matter, they present themselves to the eyes of humanity in a palpable manner. These observations, which I submit with confidence to the judgment of sensible men, contain a condemnation of the Protestant system. -So far from the pretended Reformation being able to claim any part in the salutary events which we are explaining, we should rather say that, by its principles and conduct, it would have been an obstacle in their way, if, as was happily the case, Europe had not been of adult age in the sixteenth century, and consequently almost incapable of losing the doctrines, feelings, habits, and tendencies which the Catholic Church had communicated to it during an education of so many centuries. Indeed, the first thing that Protestantism did was to attack authority, not by a mere act of resistance, but by proclaiming resistance to be a real right, by establishing private judgment as a dogma. From that moment Christian morality remained without support, for there was no longer a society which could claim the right of explaining and teaching it; that is to say, it was reduced to the level of those ideas which, not being represented or supported by an institution, and not having any authorized organ to explain them, possessed no direct means of acting on society, and had no means of protection when attacked. But I shall be told that Protestantism has preserved the institution which realizes this idea; for it has preserved its ministers, worship, and preachingin a word, all that truth requires in dealing with man. I will not deny that there is some truth in this, and I will repeat what I have not hesitated to affirm in the fourteenth chapter of this work, " That we ought to regard it as a great good, that the first Protestants, in spite of their desire to upset all the practices of the Church, have yet preserved that of preaching." I added in the same place: " It is not necessary to deny on this account the evils produced at certain times by the declamation of some ministers, either furious or fanatical; but as unity was broken, and as the people had been hurried into the perilous path of schism, we say that it must have been very conducive to the preservation of the most important ideas concerning God and man, and the fundamental maxims of morality, for such truths to be frequently explained to the people by men who had long studied them in the Holy Scriptures." I repeat here what I there said: preaching practised among Protestants must have had very good effects; but this only amounts to saying, that it did not do so much mischief as was to be feared from its own principles. On this point, they were like men of immoral opinions, who are not so bad as they would be, were their hearts in accordance with their minds: they had the good fortune to be inconsistent. Protestantism had proclaimed the abolition of authority, and the right of private judgment without limit; but in practice it did not quite act up to these doctrines. Thus, it devoted itself with ardor -to what it called gospel preaching, and its ministers were called gospellers. So that, at the very time when they just established the principle that every individual had the free right PIOTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 167 of private judgmrent, and ought to be guided by reason or private inspiration alone, without listening to any external authority, Protestant ministers were seen spreading themselves everywhere, and claiming to be the legitimate organs of the divine word. The better to understand the strange nature of such a doctrine, we must remember the maxims of Luther with respect to the priesthood. We know that this heresiarch, embarrassed by the hierarchy which constitutes the ministry of the Church, pretended to overturn it at one blow, by maintaining that all Christians are priests, and that, to exercise the sacred ministry, a simple appointment is necessary, which adds nothing essential or characteristic to the quality of priests, which is the universal patrimony of all Christians. It follows from this doctrine, that the Protestant preacher wanting a mission is not distinguished from other Christians by any characteristic; he cannot, consequently, speak to them with any authority; he is not allowed, like Jesus Christ, to speak quasipotestatem habens (as having authority); he is nothing more than an orator who addresses the people with no other right than what he derives from his education, knowledge, or eloquence. This preaching without authority, which, in reality and according to the preacher's own principles, was only human, although it committed the glaring inconsistency of pretending to be divine, may, no doult, have contributed something to the preservation of good moral principles when they were already everywhere established; but it would certainly have been unable to establish them in a society where they were unknown, especially if it had had to struggle with other principles directly opposed to it, and supported by ancient prejudices, by deeply rooted passions, and by strong interests. Yes, we repeat it, this preaching would have been unable to introduce its principles into such a society; unable to preserve them in safety amid the most alarming revolutions and the most unexampled catastrophes; unable to impart them to barbarous nations, who, proud of their triumph, listened to no other voice than that of their ferocious instinct; unable to make the conquerors and the conquered bow before these principles, to mould the most different nations into one people, by stamping on their laws, institutions, and manners the same seal, in order to form from them that admirable society, that assemblage of nations, or rather that one great nation, which is called Europe. In a word, Protestantism, from its very constitution, would have been incapable of realizing what the Catholic Church has done. Moreover, this attempted preaching preserved by Protestantism is, at bottom, an effort to imitate the Church, that it may not remain unarmed in the presence of so redoubtable an adversary. It required a means of influencing the people, -a channel open to communicate, at the will of each usurper of religious authority, different interpretations of the Bible; this is the reason why, in spite of violent declamation against all that emanated from the chair of St. Peter, it preserved the valuable practice of preaching. But the best way to feel the inferiority of Protestantism in regard to the knowledge and comprehension of the means proper to extend and strengthen morality, and make it prevail in all the acts of life, is to observe, that it has ~interrupted all communication between the conscience of the faithful and the direction of the priest; it only leaves to the latter a general direction, which, owing to its being extended over all at the same time, is exerted with effect over none. If we confine ourselves to the consideration of the abolition of the sacrament of Penance among Protestants, we may rest assured that they have thereby given up one of the most legitimate, powerful, and gentle means of rendering human conduct conformable to the principles of sound morality. Its action is legitimate; for nothing can be more legitimate than direct and intimate communication between the conscience of man who is to be judged by God, and the 168 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. conscience of the man who represents God on earth;-an action which is powerful, because this intimate communication, established between man and man, between soul and soul, identifies, as it were, the thoughts and affections; because, in the presence of God alone, to the exclusion of every other witness, admonitions have more force, precepts more authority, and advice more unction and sweetness to penetrate into the inmost soul;-an action full of gentleness, for it supposes the voluntary manifestation of the conscience which seeks guidance-a manifestation which is commanded, it is true, by authority, but which cannot be enforced by violence, as God alone is the judge of its sincerity; -an action, I repeat, which is gentle, for the minister is compelled to the strictest secrecy; all imaginable precautions have been taken by the Church to prevent a betrayal, and man may rest with tranquillity in the assurance that the secrets of his conscience will never be revealed. But you will ask me, do you believe all this is necessary to establish and. preserve a good state of morality? If morality is to be any thing more than a mere worldly probity, which is exposed to destruction at the first shock of interest, or easily seduced by the passions; if it is to be a morality delicate, strict, and profound, extending over all the acts of life, guiding and ruling the heart of man, and transforming it into that beau ideal which we admire in Catholics who are really devoted to the observances and practices of their religion; if this is the morality which you mean, it is necessary, undoubtedly, that, placed under the inspection of religious authority, it should be directed and guided by a minister of the sanctuary, by a faithful communication of the secrets of our hearts and the numberless temptations which continually assail our weak nature. This is the doctrine of the Catholic Church; and I will add, that it is pointed out by experience and taught by philosophy. I do not mean to say, that Catholics alone are capable of performing virtuous actions; this would be to contradict the experience of every day. I only wish to prove the efficacy of a Catholic institution which is despised by Protestants. I speak of the great influence which this institution has in infusing into our hearts, and preserving in them, a morality which is cordial, constant, and applicable to all the acts of our souls. No doubt, there is in man a monstrous mixture of good and evil; I know that it is not given him to attain in this life to that ineffable degree of perfection which consists in a perfect conformity with Divine truth and holiness-a perfection which he will not be able even to conceive until the moment when, stripped of his mortal body, he will be plunged into the pure ocean of light and love. But we cannot be permitted to doubt that man, in this earthly abode, in the land of misery and darkness, can, nevertheless, attain to the universal, delicate, and profound state of morality which I have just described; and, however much the present corruption of the world may be a too legitimate subject of affliction, it must be allowed that we still find, in our own days, a considerable number of honorable exceptions in the multitude of persons who conform to the strict rule of gospel morality in their conduct, their wishes, and even in their thoughts and inmost affections. To attain to this degree of.morality (and observe, I do not say of evangelical perfection, but of mere morality), it is necessary that the religious principle should be visibly present to the eyes of the soul, that it should act continually upon her, urging on or restraining her in an infinite variety of circumstances which, in the course of life, occur to mislead from the path of duty. The life of man is, as it were, a chain composed of an infinite variety of acts, which cannot be constantly in accordance with reason and the eternal law, unless it remains constantly in the hands of a fixed and universal regulator. And let it not be said that such a state of morality is a beau iddal, the existence of which would bring such confusion into the acts of the soul, and complication of the whole life, as in the PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 169 end to make it insupportable. No, this is not a mere fancy; it is a reality which is frequently seen by our eyes, not only in the cloister and the sanctuary, but amid the confusion and distractions of the world. That which establishes a fixed rule cannot bring confusion into the acts of the soul, or complicate the affairs of life. Quite the contrary; instead of confusion, it serves to distinguish and illuminate; instead of complicating, it puts in order and simplifies. Establish this rule, and you will have unity; and with unity general order. Catholicity is always distinguished by its extreme vigilance with respect to morality, by its care in regulating all the acts of life, and even the most secret movements of the heart. Superficial observers have declaimed against the prolixity of moralists-against the minute and detailed study which they make of human actions considered under a moral aspect; they should have observed, that if Catholicity is the religion in the bosom of which has appeared so great a number of moralists, by whom all human actions have been examined in the greatest detail, it is because this religion has for its object to moralize for the whole man, as it were, in all his relations with God, with his neighbor, and with himself. It is clear that such an enterprise requires a more profound and attentive examination than would be necessary, if it had only to give to man an imperfect morality, stopping at the surface of actions, and not penetrating to the bottom of the heart. With respect to Catholic moralists, and without attempting to excuse the excess into which some among them have fallen, either by too great subtility, or by a spirit of party and dispute (excesses which cannot be imputed to the Catholic Church, since she has testified her displeasure when she has not expressly condemned them), it must be observed, that this abundance, this superfluity, if you will, of moral studies, has contributed more than people think to direct minds to the intimate study of man, by furnishing a multitude of facts and observations to those who have subsequently wished to devote themselves to this important science. Now, can there be a more worthy or more useful object for our labors? In another part of this work, I propose to develope the relations of Catholicity with the progress of science and literature; I shall not, therefore, enter more fully on the matter now. Still I may be allowed briefly to observe, that the development and education of the human mind have been principally theological; and that on this point, as well as on many others, philosophers are more indebted to theologians than they seem to imagine. Let us return to the comparison of the Protestant and Catholic influence on the formation and preservation of a sound public conscience. We have showed that Catholicity, having constantly maintained the principle of authority which Protestantism rejects, has given to moral ideas a force and influence which Protestantism could not. Protestantism, indeed, by its nature and fundamental principles, has never given to these ideas any other support than they might have derived from a school of philosophy. But you will perhaps ask me, do you not acknowledge the force of these ideas; a force peculiar to them, and inherent in their nature, and which frequently changes the face of the world, by deciding its doctrines? Do you not know that they always, in the end, force a passage, in spite of every obstacle, and of all resistance? Have you forgotten the teaching of all history; and do you pretend to deprive human thought of that vital, creative force, which renders man superior to all that surrounds him? Such is the common panegyric on the strength of ideas; thus we see them transformed every moment into all-powerful beings, whose magical wand is capable of changing every thing at their pleasure. However this may be, I am full of respect for human thought, and allow that there is much truth in what is called the force of an idea; yet I must beg leave to offer a few observations to these enthusiasts,' not directly to combat their opinion, but to make some necessary modifications. In the first place, idea.s, in 22 P 170 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHIOLICITY. the point of view in which we are now considering them, must be divided into two orders; some flattering our passions, the others checking them. It cannot be denied that the former have an immense expansive force. They have a motion of their own; they act in all places; they exert a rapid, violent power; one would say that they overflow with life and activity. The latter have great difficulty in making their way; they advance slowly, they cannot pursue their career without an institution to secure their stability. And why? Because it is not the ideas themselves which act in the former case, but the passions which accompany them, and assume their names; thus masking what is repulsive in them at first sight. In the latter case, on the contrary, it is the truth that speaks. Now, in this land of misfortune, the truth is but little attended to; for it leads to good; and the heart of man, as the Scripture says, is inclined to evil from his youth. Those who vaunt so much the native force of ideas, should point out to us, in ancient or modern history, one idea which, without going out of its own circle, that of the purely philosophical order, is entitled to the glory of having materially contributed to the amelioration of individuals and society. It is commonly said that the force of ideas is immense; that once shown among men, they will fructify sooner or later; that once deposited in the bosom of humanity, they will remain there as a precious legacy, and contribute wonderfully to the improvement of the world, to the perfection towards which the human race advances. No doubt these assertions contain some truth; as man is an intelligent being, all that immediately affects his mind must certainly influence his destiny.. Thus no great change is worked in society without being first realized in the order of ideas; all that is established contrary to our ideas, or without them, must be weak and passing. But it is by no means to be supposed that every useful idea contains in itself a conservative force capable of dispensing with all institutions; that is to say, with support and defence, even during times of social disorder: between these two propositions there is a gulf which cannot be closed without contradicting all history. Now humanity, considered by itself, and given up to its own strength, as it appears to philosophers, is not so safe a depositary as people wish to suppose. Unhappily we have melancholy proofs of this truth: we see too clearly that the human race, far from being a faithful trustee, has but too much imitated the conduct of a foolish spendthrift. In the cradle of the human race, we find great ideas on the unity of God, on man, on relations of man with God and their fellow-men. These ideas were certainly true, salutary, and fruitful: and yet, what did man do withthem? Did he not lose them by modifying, mutilating, and distorting them in the most deplorable way? Where were they when Jesus Christ came into the world? What had humanity done with them? One nation alone preserved them; but in what way? Fix your attention on the chosen people, the Jews, and you will see that there was a continual struggle between truth and error; you will see that, by an inconceivable blindness, they incessantly inclined to idolatry; they had a constant tendency to substitute the abominations of the Gentiles for the sublime law of Mount Sinai. And do you know how the truth was preserved among this people? Observe it well; it was supported by the strongest institutions that can be imagined; it was armed with all the means of defence with which an inspred legislator could surround it. It will be said that they were a hard-hearted nation, in the language of the Scriptures; unhappily, since the fall of our first parent, this hardness of heart is become the patrimony of humanity; the heart of man is inclined to evil from his youth; ages before the existence of the Jews, God had covered the earth with the waters of heaven, and had blotted out man from the face of the world; for all flesh had cort rupted its lwy. We must conclude from this, that the preservation of great moral ideas requires powerful institutions; it is evident, therefore, that they cannot be abandoned to the fickleness of the human mind without being disfigured, or even PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 171 lost. I will say, moreover, that institutions are not only necessary to teach, but also to apply them. Moral ideas, especially those which openly contradict the passions, are never reduced to practice without great efforts; now the ideas themselves do not suffice to make these great efforts, and means of action are required capable of connecting ideas with facts; this is one of the reasons of the impotence of philosophical schools when they attempt to construct any thing. They are often powerful in destroying; momentary action is enough for this, and this action may be easily acquired in a moment of enthusiasm. But when they wish to establish and reduce their conceptions to practice, they are impotent; their only resource is what is called the force of ideas. Now, as ideas constantly vary and change-an inconstancy of which these schools themselves afford the first example-it happens that what we hear them announce one moment as an infallible means of human progress, is the next reduced to a mere object of curiosity. These last observations anticipate the objection that may be urged against us with respect to the immense force which printing has given to ideas. But this is so far from being a preserver, that it may be said to be the best destroyer of all opinions. If we measure the immense orbit which the human mind has passed through since that important discovery, we shall see that the consummation of opinions (if I may be allowed the expression) is increased in a prodigious degree. The history of the human race, especially since the press has become periodical, appears to be the representation of a rapid drama, where the decorations change every moment, where the scenes succeed each other, scarcely allowing the spectator to catch any of the author's words. Half of this century has not yet passed away, arid already it seems as if many centuries had elapsed, so great has been the number of schools which have been born and are dead, of reputations which, after being raised to the highest pitch of renown, have been soon forgotten. This rapid succession of ideas, so far from contributing to increase their force, necessarily renders them weak and unproductive. The natural order in the progress of ideas is this: at first to make their appearance, then to be realized in an institution representing them, and in fine to exert their influence on facts by means of an institution in which they are personified. Now, it is necessary that during these transformations, which essentially require time, ideas should preserve their credit, if they are to produce any favorable result. But when they succeed each other too rapidly, time is wanting for their successive transformations; new ideas strive to discredit the old ones, and consequently to render them useless. This is the reason why the strength of ideas, that is, of philosophy, was never so little to be relied on as now, to produce any thing durable and consistent in the moral order: in this respect, the gain to modern society may well be questioned. More is conceived, but less matured; what the mind gains in extent, it loses in depth, and the pretension in theory makes a sad contrast with the impotence of practice. Of what importance is it that our predecessors were.not so ready as we are in improvising a discussion on great social and political'questions, if they nevertheless organized and founded such admirable- institutions? The architects who raised the astonishing monuments of ages which we call barbarous, were certainly not so learned or so culti. vated as those of our time; and yet who has the boldness even to commence what they have finished? Thus it is in the social and political order. Let us remember that great thoughts are produced rather by intuition than by reasoning; in practice, success depends more upon the invaluable quality called tact, than upon enlightened reflection; and experience often teaches that he who knows much, sees little. The genius of Plato would not have been.the best guide for Solon or Lycurgus; and all the knowledge of Cicero would not have succeeded in doing what was done by the tact and good sense of two unlettered men like Romulus and Numa. (20) 172 CHAPTER XXXI. ON GENTLENESS OF MANNERS IN GENERAL. A CERTAIN general gentleness of manners, which in war prevents great atro. cities, and in peace renders life more quiet and agreeable:-such is one of the valuable qualities which I have pointed out as forming the distinguishing characteristics of European civilization. This is a fact which does not require proof; we see and feel it everywhere when we look around; it is evident to all who open the pages of history, and compare our times with any others. Wherein does this gentleness of manners in modern times consist? what is the cause of it? what has favoured it? what has opposed it? These interesting questions directly apply to our present subject; for they lead straight to the examination of other questions, such as the following: has Catholicity contributed in any way to this gentleness of manners; or, on the other hand, has it opposed or retarded it? in fine, what part has Protestantism played in the work, for good or evil? First of all, we must determine wherein gentleness of manners consists. Although we have here to deal with an idea which every one sees, or rather feels, we must still endeavor to explain and analyze it by a definition as complete and exact as possible. Gentleness of manners consists in the absence of.brce; so that manners will be more or less gentle according as force is less or more employed. Thus, we must not confound gentle with charitable manners; the latter work good, the former only exclude the idea of force. We must also distinguish gentle manners from those that are pure, and conformable to reason and justice. Immorality is often gentle, when, instead of resorting to force, it makes use of seduction and stratagem. This gentleness of manners consists in directing the human mind, not by violence which constrains the body, but by reasons which address themselves to the intellect, or by appeals to the passions. Thus it is that gentle manners are not always under the influence of reason; but their rule is always intellectual, although they are often made the slaves of the passions by golden chains of their own formation. If gentleness of manners consists in not making use, in human transactions, of other means than those of conviction, persuasion, or seduction, it is clear that the most advanced society-that is, that in which intelligence has been most developed-should always participate more or less in this social advantage. There the mind rules, because it is strong; while material force disappears, because the body has less strength. Moreover, in societies very much advanced, where relations and interests are necessarily much multiplied, there is an indispensable want of means capable of acting in a universal and lasting manner, and applicable to all the details of life. These means are, unquestionably, moral and intellectual: the mind operates without destruction, while force dashes violently against obstacles, and breaks itself to pieces, if it cannot overturn them. Thus it is the cause of continual commotions, which cannot subsist in a society which has numerous and complicated relations, without throwing into confusion and destroying society itself. We always observe in young nations a lamentable abuse of force. Nothing is more natural: the passions ally themselves with force, because they resemble it; they are energetical as violence, and rude as its shocks. When society has reached a great degree of development, the passions are divorced from force, and become allied with the intelligence; they cease to be violent, in order to become artful.' In the first case, if it is the people who struggle, they make war on, they contend with, and destroy each other; in the second case, they contend with the arms of industry, commerce, and contraband. Governments attack, in the first case, by arms and invasions; and in the second by diplomacy. In PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 173 the first epoch, warriors are every thing; in the second, they are nothing; they have not a very important part to play when negotiation, and not fighting, is required. When we look at ancient civilization, we observe a remarkable difference between the character of its manners and the gentleness of ours. Neither the Greeks nor Romans ever regarded this precious quality in the light in which we regard it, for the honor of European civilization. Those nations became enervated, but they did not become gentle; we may say that their, manners were made effeminate, but they were not softened; for we see them make use of force on all occasions, when neither vigor of body nor energy of mind was required. There is nothing more worthy of observation than this peculiarity of ancient civilization, especially of that of Rome. Now this phenomenon, which at first sight appears to us to be very strange, has very deep causes. Besides the principal of these causes, which is, the want of an element of civilization such as that which modern nations have had in Christian charity, we shall find among the ancients, if we descend to the details of their social organization, certain causes which necessarily hindered this gentleness of manners being established among them. In the first case, slavery, one of the constituent elements of their social and domestic organization, was an eternal obstacle to the introduction of this precious quality. The man who has the power of throwing another to the fishes, and of punishing with death the crime of breaking a glass; he who during a feast, to gratify his caprice, can take away the life of one of his brethren; he who can rest upon a voluptuous couch, surrounded by the most sumptuous magnificence, while he knows that hundreds of men, crowded together in dark vaults, work incessantly for his cupidity and his pleasures; he who can hear without emotion the lamentations of a crowd of unhappy beings imploring a morsel of bread to pass through the night's misery which is to unite their labors and fatigues of the evening with those of the morning, such a man may have effeminate, but he cannot have gentle manners; his heart may become enervated, but it will not cease to be cruel. This was precisely the situation of the free man in ancient society: the organization of which we have just stated the results was regarded as indispensable; they could not even conceive the possibility of any other order of things. What removed this obstacle? was it not the Catholic Church, by abolishing slavery, after having ameliorated the cruel lot of slaves? Those who revert to the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th chapters of this work, with the notes appended to them, will find the truth of this demonstrated by incontestable reasons and documents. In the second place, the right of life and death, given by the laws to the paternal power, introduced into families an element of severity which could not but produce injurious effects. Happily, the hearts of fathers were continually contending against the power thus granted by law: but if this feeling did riot prevent some deeds the perusal of which makes us shudder, must we not suppose that, in the ordinary course of life, cruel scenes constantly reminded the members of families of this atrocious right with which the chief was invested? Will not he who is possessed of the power of killing with impunity, be frequently hurried into acts of cruel despotism? Now this tyrannical extension of the rights of paternal authority, carried far beyond the limits pointed out by nature, was taken away by the force of laws and manners which were much aided by the influence of Catholicity (see the 24th chap. of this work). To the two causes which I have just pointed out, may be added another perfectly analogous, viz. the despotism which the husband exercised over his wife, and the little respect which was paid to her. Public spectacles were, among the Romans, another element of severity and cruelty. What could be expected of a people whose principal amusement is to look coolly upon homicide-who took pleasure P2 174 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. in witnessing the slaughter in the arena of hundreds of men fighting against each other, or against wild beasts? As a Spaniard, I feel called upon here to insert a paragraph, in reply to the observations which will be made against me on this point: I allude to the Spanish bull-fights. I shall naturally be asked, Is it not in a Christian and Catholic country that the custom of making men fight against animals is preserved? The objection, however plausible it may seem, can be answered. In the first place, to avoid any misunderstanding, I declare that this popular amusement is, in my opinion, barbarous, and ought, if possible, to be completely extirpated. But after this full and explicit avowal, let me be permitted to make a few observations, to screen the honor of my country. In the first place, it must be remarked, that there is in the human heart a secret taste for risks and dangers; in order to make an adventure interesting, it is necessary that the hero should be encompassed with great and multiplied perils; if a history is to excite curiosity to a high degree, it must not be an uninterrupted chain of peaceful and happy events. We wish to find ourselves frequently in the presence of extraordinary and surprising facts; and, however unpleasant may be the avowal, our hearts, while they feel the tenderest compassion for the unfortunate, seem to require the contemplation of scenes of a more violent and exciting character. Hence the taste for tragedies: hence the love of scenes in which the actors incur great risks, in appearance or in reality. It is not my duty here to explain the origin of this phenomenon; it is enough for me here to point out its existence-to show foreigners who accuse us of being barbarians, that the taste of the Spanish people for bull-fights is only the application to a particular case, If an inclination inherent everywhere in the heart of man. Those who, with respect to this custom of the Spanish people, affect so much humanity, would do well to answer the following questions: To what is owing the pleasure taken by the multitude in every exhibition, when the actors run any risk in one way or another? Whence comes it'that all would willingly be present at the bloodiest battle; if they could do so without danger? Whence comes it that everywhere an immense multitude assembles to witness the agonies and the last convulsion: of a criminal on the gibbet? Whence comes it, in fine, that foreigners, when at Madrid, render themselves accomplices in the barbarity of Spaniards by assisting at these bull-fights? I say this, not in any degree to excuse a custom which appears to me to be unworthy of a civilized people, but to show that in this point, as well as in almost all that relates to the. Spanish people, there are exaggerations which ought to be reduced within reasonable limits. Let us add an important observation, which is the best excuse that can be made for this reprehensible exhibition: instead of fixing our attention on the spectacle itself, let us consider the evils that flow from it. Now, I ask, how many men die in Spain in bull-fights? The number is extremely small, and altogether insignificant in proportion to the frequency of these spectacles; so that if a comparison were made between the accidents which occur in consequence of this amusement and those that happen in other sports, such as horse-races and others of the same kind, we should perhaps find that bull-fights, however barbarous they may be in themselves, still do not deserve all the anathemas with which foreigners have loaded them. To return to our principal object, how, we ask, is it possible to compare an amusement which, perhaps, may not cost the life of one man during many years, to those terrible shows in which death was a necessary condition for the pleasure of the spectators? After the triumph of Trajan over the Dacians, the public games lasted twenty-three days, and the fearful number of six thousand gladiators was slain. Such were the amusements atRome, not only of the populace, but of the highest classes; such were the horrible spectacles required by a people who added voluptuousness to the most atrocious cruelty. This is a most convincing proof of what I have said, viz. PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 175 thlzt manners may be effeminate without being gentle, and that the brutality of unbounded luxury is not inconsistent with the instinct of blood-thirsty ferocity. It is impossible that such spectacles should be tolerated among modern nations, however corrupt their manners may be. The principle of charity has extended its empire too universally for such excesses to be renewed. This charity, it is true, does not induce men to do all the good to each other that they ought; but, at least, it prevents their coldly perpetrating evil, and assisting quietly at the slaughter of their brethren to gratify the pleasure of the moment. Christianity, at its birth, cast into society the seed of this aversion to homicide. Who is not aware of the repugnance of Christians for the shows of the Gentiles-a repugnance prescribed and kept alive by the admonitions of the early pastors of the Church? It was an acknowledged fact, that Christian charity prohibited the being present at games where homicide formed part of the spectacle. "As for us," said one of the apologists of the early ages, " we malSe little difference between committing murder and seeing it committed."(21) CHAPTER XXXII. TIHE IMPROVEMENT OF MANNERS BY THE ACTION OF THE CHURCH. MODERN society ought, it would seem, to be distinguished for severity and cruelty, since it was formed from that of the Romans and barbarians, from both of whom it should have inherited these qualities. Who is not aware of the fierce manners of the northern barbarians? The historians of that time have left us statements that make us shudder when we read them. It was' believed that the end of the world was at hand; and, indeed, it was excusable to consider the last catastrophe as near, when so many other melancholy ones had already been heaped upoh humanity. The imagination cannot figure to itself what would have happened to the world at this crisis, if Christianity had not existed. Even supposing that society would have been organized anew under one form or another, it is certain that private and public relations would have remained in a state of lamentable disorder, and that legislation would have been unjust and inhuman. Thus the influence of the Church on civil legislation was an inestimable benefit; thus even the power of the clergy in temporal things was one of the greatest safeguards of the highest interests of society. Attacks are often made upon this temporal power of the clergy and this influence of the Church in worldly affairs. But, in the first place, it should be remembered, that this power and influence were brought about by the very nature of things; that is to say, they were natural, and, consequently, to assail them is to declaim in vain against the force of events, of which no man could hinder the realization. This power and influence, besides, were legitimate; for when society is in danger, nothing can be more legitimate than that that which can save it should save it. Now, at the time we speak of, the Church alone could save society. The Church, which is not an abstract being, but a real and substantial society, acted upon civil society by real and substantial means. If the purely material interests of society were in question, the minister of the Church ought, in some way or other, to take part in the direction of those interests. These reflections are so natural and simple, that their truth must be seen by good sense. All those who know any thing of history are now generally agreed on this point; and if we are not aware how much it generally costs the human mind to enter upon the path of truth, and, above all, how much bad faith there has been in the examination of these questions, we shall have a difficulty in understanding that so much time should have been 176 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. required to bring the world to agree on a thing which is apparent to those who read history. But let us return to our subject. This extraordinary mixture of the cruelty of a cultivated but corrupted people with the atrocious ferocity of a barbarous one, proud of its triumphs, and intoxicated with blood during long wars, placed in European society a germ of severity and cruelty which fermented there for ages, and the remains of which we find at a late period. The precept of Christian charity was in men's heads, but Roman cruelty and barbarian ferocity still prevailed in their hearts; ideas were pure and beneficent, since they proceeded from a religion of love, but they encountered a terrible resistance in the habits, manners, institutions, and laws, for all these were more or less disfigured by the two mixed principles which I have just pointed out. If we reflect upon the constant and obstinate struggle between the Catholic Church and the elements which contended with her, we shall clearly see that Christian ideas could never have prevailed in legislation and manners, if Christianity had been a religious idea abandoned to human caprice, as Protestants imagine; it was necessary for it to be realized in a powerful institution, in a strongly constituted society, such as we find in the Catholic Church. In order to give an idea of the efforts made by the Church, I will point out some of the regulations which she made for the purpose of improving manners. Private animosities were very violent at the time of which we speak; and right was decided by force, and the world was threatened with becoming the patrimony of the strongest. Public law did not exist, or was hurried away and confounded by outrages which its feeble hand could never prevent or repress; it was altogether powerless in rendering manners pacific, and in subjecting men to reason and justice. Then we see that the Church, besides the instruction and the general admonitions inseparable from her sacred mission, adopted at that time certain measures calculated to restrain the torrent of violence which ravaged and destroyed every thing. The Council of Arles, celebrated in the middle of the fifth century, between 443 and 452, ordains, in its 50th canon, that the Church should be interdicted to those who have public animosities, until they were reconciled. The Council of Angers, celebrated in 453, proscribes, by its 3d canon, acts of violence and mutilation. The Council of Agde, in Languedoc, celebrated in 506, ordains, in its 31st canon, that enemies who would not be reconciled should be admonished by the priests, and excommunicated if they did not follow their apostolical counsels. The Franks at that time had the custom of going armed, and they always entered the churches with their arms. It will be understood that such a custom must have produced great evils; the house of prayer was often converted into an arena of blood and vengeance. In the middle of the seventh century, the Council of Chalons-sur-Saone, in its 17th canon, pronounces excommunication against all laymen who excite tumults, or draw their swords to strike any one in the churches or in their precincts. Thus, we see the prudence and foresight which dictated the 29th canon of the third Council of Orleans, celebrated in 538, which forbids any one to be present at mass or vespers, armed. It is curious to observe the uniformity of design and plan pursued by the Church. In countries the most distant from each other, and at times when communication could not be frequent, we find regulations analogous to those which we have pointed out. The Council of Lerida, held in 546, ordains, by its 7th canon, that he who shall have sworn not to be reconciled with his enemy,-shall be deprived of the participation of the body and blood of Jesus Christ until he has done penance for his oath and been reconciled. Centuries passed away, acts of violence continued, the precept of fraternal charity, which obliges us to love even our enemies, always met with open resistance in the harsh character and fierce passions of the descendants of the barbarians; but the Church did not cease to preach the divine command; she PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 17' continually inculcated and labored to render it efficacious by means of spiritual penalties. More than four hundred years had elapsed since the celebration of the Council of Arles, where we have seen the church forbidden to those who were openly at variance; we then see the Council of Worms, held in 868, pronouncing, in its 41st canon, excommunication against enemies who refused to be reconciled. It will suffice to have some idea of the disorders of that time, to know whether it was possible to appease the violence of animosities during this long period. One would fancy that the Church would have been wearied of inculcating a precept which the unhappy state of circumstances so often rendered fruitless; but such was not the case: she continued to speak as she had spoken for ages; she never lost her confidence that her words would produce fruit in the present, and would be productive in the future. Such is her system; one would think that she heard these words constantly repeated, "Cry out, cry out without ceasing; raise thy voice like a trumpet " It is then that she triumphs over all resistance; when she cannot exert her power over the will of a nation, she makes her voice heard with indefatigable diligence in the sanctuary. There she assembles seven thousand who have not bent the knee to Baal; and while she endeavors to confirm them in faith and good works, she protests, in the name of God, against those who resist the Holy Spirit. Let us imagine that, amid the dissipation and distraction of a populous city, we enter a sacred place, where seriousness and moderation reign, in the bosom of silence and religious retirement; there a minister of the sanctuary, surrounded by a chosen number of the faithful, utters from time to time some serious and solemn words. This is the personification of the Church in times disastrous from weakened faith and corrupted morals. One of the rules of conduct of the Catholic Church has been, not to bend before the powerful. When she has proclaimed a law, the has proclaimed it for all, without distinction of rank. In the time of the vower of those petty tyrants, who, under different names, persecuted the people, ihis conduct of the Church contributed in an extraordinary degree to render the ecclesiastical laws popular; for nothing was more likely to make a law tolerable go the people than to show that it applied to nobles, and even to kings. In the times of which we speak, hatred and violence among plebeians were severely proscribed; but the same law extended to great men and to royalty. A short time after the establishment of Christianity in England, we find a very curious example in that country, applicable to this question. It is nothing less than excommunication pronounced against three kings in the same year, and in the same town; all these were compelled by the Councils to do penance for the crimes which they had committed. The town of Llandaff, in Wales, within the metropolitan see of Canterbury, witnessed the celebration of three Councils, in the year 560. In the first, Monric, king of Glamorgan, was excommunicated for having put to death King Cinetha, although he had sworn the peace on the sacred relics; in the second, King Morcant was excommunicated for having put to death Friac, his uncle, in whose favor he had equally sworn the peace; in the third, King Guidnert was excommunicated for having put to death his brother, the competitor for the throne. Thus, these barbarian chiefs, just changed into kings, and prone to slaughter, are compelled to acknowledge the authority of a superior power, and to expiate by penance the murder of their relatives and the violation of sacred engagements; it is useless to point out how much this must have contributed to the improvement of manners. "It was easy," the enemies of the Church will say -those who endeavor to lower the merit of her acts-"it was easy to preach gentleness of manners, to impose the observance of divine precepts on chiefs whose power was limited, and who had only the name of kings; it was easy to manage those petty barbarian chiefs, who, rendered fanatical by a religion of which they understood nothing, humbly bowed before the first priest who ven 23 178 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. tured to menace them on the part of God. But of what importance was that? What influence could it have on the course of great events? The history of European civilization presents a vast theatre, where events must be studied on a large scale, and where none but the most important scenes exercised any influence on the spirit of nations." Let us observe, that these petty barbarian kings were the origin of the principal families which now occupy the most important thrones of the world. To place the germ of real civilization in their hearts, was to graft the tree which was one day to overshadow the earth. But without staying to show the futility of such reasoning, and as our opponents desire great scenes capable of influencing European manners on a large scale, let us open the history of the Church in the first ages, and we shall soon find a page which redounds to tile eternal honor of Catholicity. The whole of the known world was subject te an emperor, whose name, then universally venerated, will continue to be respected by the remotest posterity. In an important city, the rebellious inhabitants put to death the commander of the garrison; the emperor, transported with anger, orders them to be exterminated. Returning to himself, he revokes the order; but it was too late, the order was executed, and thousands of victims had been involved in the horrible carnage; at the news of this dreadful catastrophe, a bishop quits the court of the emperor, leaves the city, and writes to him in this grave language: "I dare not offer the sacrifice if you attempt to be present at it; the blood of one innocent person would suffice to forbid me; how much more the massacre of a ldrge number." The emperor, confident in his power, takes no notice of this letter, and goes towards the church. When he arrives at the door, he finds himself, in the presence of a venerable man, who, with a grave and steirn countenance, stops him and forbids him to enter the church. "Thou hast imitated David in crime," he says, "imitate him also in penance." The emperor yields, humbles himself, and submits to the regulations of the bishop, and religion and humanity gain an immortal triumph. This unhappy city was Thessalonica; the emperor was Theodosius; the prelate was St. Ambrose, Archbishop of Milan. We find face to face, in this sublime fact, force and justice personified. Justice triumphs over force; but wihy? Because he who represents justice, represents it in the name of Heaven; because the sacred vestments and the imposing attitude of the man who stops the emperor reminds Theodosius of the divine mission of the holy bishop, and of the office which he holds in the sacred ministry. Put a philosopher in the place of the bishop, and tell him to arrest the proud culprit by an injunction of doing penance, and you will see whether human wisdom can do as much as the Catholic priest speaking in the name of God. Put, if you please, a bishop of the Church, who has acknowledged spiritual supremacy in the civil power, and you will see whether in his mouth words have the same effect in obtaining so glorious a triumph. The spirit of the Church was always the same; her arms were always directed towards the same end; her language was always equally strict, equally strong, whether she spoke to the Roman plebeian or a barbarian, whether she addressed her admonitions to a patrician of the empire or to a noble German. Sue was no more afraid of the purple of the Caesars than of the frowns of the long-haired kings. The power which she possessed during the middle ages was not exclusively owing to her having preserved alone the light of science and the principles of government; but it was also owing to the invincible firmness, which no resistance and no attack could destroy. What would Protestantism have effected in such difficult and dangerous circumstances? Without authority, without a centre of action, without security for her own faith, without confidence in her resources, what means would she have had to assist her in restraining the torrent of violence-that impetuous torrent, which, after having inundated the world, was about to destroy the remains of ancient civilization, and opposed to PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 179 all attempts at social reorganization an obstacle almost insurmountable? Catholicity, with its ardent faith, its powerful authority, its undivided unity, its well-compacted hierarchy, was able to undertake the lofty enterprise of improving manners; and it brought to the undertaking that constancy which is inspired by conscious strength, and that boldness which animates a mind secure of triumph. We must not, however, imagine that the conduct of the Church, in lier mission of improving manners, always brought her into collision with force. We also see her employ indirect means, limit her demands to what she could obtain, and ask for as little, in order to obtain as much as possible. In a capitulary of Charlemagne, given at Aix-la-Chapelle in 813, and consisting of twenty-six articles, which are nothing more than a sort of confirmation and resumd of the five Councils held a little before in France, we find in an appendix of two articles the method of proceeding judicially against those who, under pretext of the right called faida, excited tumults on Sundays, holidays, and also working days. WVe have already seen above that they had recourse to the holy relics, to give greater authority to the oaths of peace and friendship taken by kings towards each other-an august act, in which Heaven was invoked to prevent the effusion of blood, and to establish peace on earth. We see in the capitulary which we have just quoted, that the respect for Sundays and holidays was made use of to bring about the abolition of the barbarous custom, which authorized the relations of a murdered man to avenge his death in the blood of the murderer. The deplorable state of European society at that time is vividly painted by the means which the ecclesiastical power was compelled to use, to diminish in some degree the disasters occasioned by the prevailing violence. Not to attack, not to maltreat any one, not to have recourse to force to obtain reparation or to gratify a desire of vengeance, appears to us to be so just, so reasonable, and so natural, that we can hardly imagine another way of acting. If, now, a law were promulgated, to forbid one to attack one's enemy on such or such a day, at such or such an hour, it would appear to us the height of folly and extravagance. But it was not so at that time; such prohibitions were made continually, not in obscure hamlets, but in great towns, in very numerous assemblies, when bishops were present in hundreds, and where counts, dukes, princes, and kings were gathered together. This law, by which authority was glad to make the principles of justice respected, at least on certain days,-principally on the great solemnities,-this law, which now would appear to us so strange, was, in a certain way, and for a long period, one of the chief points of public and private law in Europe. It will be understood that I allude to the truce of God, a privilege of peace very necessary at that time, as we see it very often renewed in various countries. Of all that I might say on this point, I shall content myself with selecting a few of the decisions of Councils at the time. The Council of Tubuza, in the diocese of Elne, in Roussillon, held by Guifred, Archbishop of Narbonne, in 1041, established the truce of God, from the evening of Friday until Monday morning. Nobody during that time could take any thing by force, or revenge any injury, or require any pledge in surety. Those who violated this decree were liable to the same legal composition as if they had merited death; in default of which, they were excommunicated and banished from the country. The practice of this ecclesiastical regulation was considered so advantageous, that many other Councils were held in France during the same year, on the same subject. Moreover, care was taken frequently to repeat the obligation, as we see by the Council of Saint Gilles, in Languedoc, held in 1042, and by that of Narbonne, held in 1045. In spite of these, repeated efforts did not obtain all the desired fruit; this is indicated by the changes which we observe in the regulations of the law. Thus we see that, in the year 1047, the truce of God 1t0 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. was fixed for a less time than in 1041; the Council of Telugis, in the salnm diocese of Elne, held in 1047, only ordains that it is forbidden to any one in all the comte of Roussillon to attack his enemy between the hours of none on Sunday and prime on Monday; the law was then much less extensive than in 1041, when, as we have seen, the truce of God was extended from Friday evening till Monday morning. We find in the same Council a remarkable regulation, the object of which was to preserve from all attack men who were going to church or returning from it, or who were accompanying women. In 1054, the truce of God had gained ground; we see it extended, not only from Friday evening till Monday morning after sunrise, but over considerable periods of the year. Thus we see that the Council of Narbonne, held by Archbishop Guifred, in 1045, after having included in the truce of God the time from Friday evening till Monday morning, declares it obligatory during the following periods: from the first Sunday of Advent till the octave of the Epiphany; from Quinquagesima Sunday till the octave of Easter; from the Sunday preceding the Ascension till the octave of Pentecost; the. festival days of Our Lady, of St. Peter, of St. Laurence, of St. Michael, of All Saints, of St. Martin, of St. Just and Pasteur, titularies of the Church of Narbonne, and all fasting days, under pain of anathema and perpetual banishment. The same Council gives some other regulations, so beautiful that we cannot pass them over in silence, when we are engaged in showing the influence of the Catholic Church in improving manners. The 9th canon forbids the cutting of olive-trees; a reason for it is given, which, in the eyes of jurists, will not appear sufficiently general or adequate, but which, in the eyes of the philosophy of history, is a beautiful symbol of the beneficial influence exercised over society by religion. This is the reason given by the Council: "It is," it says, " that the olive-trees may furnish matterfor the holy chrism, and feed the lamps that burn in the churches." Such a reason was sure to produce more effect than any that could be drawn from Ulpian and Justinian. It is ordained in the 10th canon that shepherds and their flocks shall enjoy at all times the security of the truce; the same favor is extended by the 11th canon to all houses within thirty paces of the churches. The 18th canon forbids those who have a suit, to take any active steps, to commit the least violence, until the cause has been judged in presence of the bishop and lord of the place. The other canons forbid the robbing of merchants and pilgrims, and the commission of wrong against any one, under pain of being separated from the Church, if the crime be committed during the time of the truce. In proportion as we advance in the 11th century, we see the salutary practice of the truce of God more and more inculcated; the Popes interpose their authority in its favor. At the Council of Gironne, held by Cardinal Huguesle-Blanc, in 1068, the truce of God is confirmed by the authority of Alexander II., under pain of excommunication; the Council held in 1080, at Lillebonne, in Normandy, gives us reason to suppose that the truce was then generally established, since it ordains, by its first canon to bishops and lords, to take care that it was observed, and to inflict on offenders against it censures and other penalties. In the year 1093, the Council of Troja, in Apulia, held by Urban II., continues tne truce of God. To judge of the extent of this canonical regulation, we should know that this Council consisted of sixty-five bishops. The number was much greater at the Council of Clermont, in Auvergne, held by the same Urban II., in 1095; it reckoned no less than thirteen archbishops, two hundred and twenty bishops, and a great number of abbots. The first canon of this Council confirms the truce for Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday; it wishes, moreover, that it should be observed on all the days of the week, with respect to monks, clergy, and women. The canons 29 and 30 ordain, that if a man pursued by an enemy take refuge near a cross, he PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 181 should be in safety, as if he had found asylum in a church. The sublime sign of redemption, after having given salvation to the world, by drinking on Calvary the blood of the Son of God, had already proved a refuge, during the sack of Rome, to those who fled from the fury of the barbarians; centuries later, we find it erected on the roads, to save the unfortunate, who, by embracing it, escaped their enemies, who were thus deterred from vengeance. The Council of Rouen, held in 1096, extending still further the benefit of the truce, ordains the observance of it from the Sunday before Ash Wednesday till the second feast after the octave of Pentecost, from sunset on Wednesday preceding Advent to the octave of Epiphany, and every week from Friday after sunset till the Monday following at sunrise; in fine, on all the feasts and vigils of the Virgin and the Apostles. The 2d canon of the same Council secures perpetual peace to all clergy, monks, and nuns, to women, to pilgrims, to merchants and their servants, to oxen and horses of labor, to carmen and laborers; it gives the same privileges to all lands that belong to sacred institutions; all such persons, animals, and lands are protected from the attacks of pillage and all kinds of violence. At this time the law felt itself stronger; it could now call for obedience in a firmer tone; we see, indeed, that the third canon of the same Council enjoins upon all who have reached the age of twelve, to engage by oath to observe the truce; in the fourth canon, all who refuse to take this oath are excommunicated. Some years after, in 1115, the truce, instead of comprising certain stated parts of the year, embraces whole years; the Council of Troja in Apulia, held in that year by Pope Pascal, establishes the truce for three years. The Popes pursued with ardor the work thus commenced; they sanctioned it with their authority, and extended the observance of the truce by means of their influence, then universal and powerful over all Europe. Although the truce was apparently only a testimony of respect paid to religion by the violent passions, which, in her favor, consented to suspend their hostilities, it was, in reality, a triumph of right over might, and one of the most admirable devices ever used to improve the manners of a barbarous people. The man who, during four days of the week, and during long periods of the year, was compelled to suspend the exercise of force, was necessarily led to more gentle manners; he must, in the end, entirely renounce it. The difficulty is not, to convince a man that he does ill, but to make him lose the habit of doing so; and it is well known that habits are engendered by the repetition of acts, and are lost when they cease for a time. Nothing is more pleasing to the Christian soul than to see the Popes laboring to maintain and extend this truce. They renew the command of it with a power the more efficacious and universal according to the number of bishops who assist at the Councils where their supreme authority presides. At the Council of Rheims, opened by Pope Calixtus II. in person, in 1119, a decree confirming the truce is promulgated. Thirteen archbishops, more than two hundred bishops, and a great number of abbots and ecclesiastics, distinguished for their rank, assisted at this Council. The same command is renewed at the General Council of Lateran, held under the care of the same Pontiff, Calixtus II., in 1123. There were assembled more than three hundred archbishops and bishops, and more than six hundred abbots. In 1130, the Council of Clermont, in Auvergne, held by Innocent II., insists on the same point, and repeats the regulations concerning the observance of the truce. The Council of Avignon, held in 1209, by Hugh, Bishop of Riez, and Milon, notary of Pope Innocent III., both legates of the Holy See, confirms the laws before enacted on the subject of the peace and the truce, and condemns the rebellious who dare to infringe them. In the year 1215, at the Council of Montpellier, assembled by Robert de Courgon, and presided over by Cardinal Benavent, in his office as legate of the province, all the regulations established at different Q 182 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. times for the public safety, and more recently to secure peace between lord and lord, and town and town, are renewed and confirmed. Those who have regarded the intervention of the ecclesiastical power in civil affairs as a usurpation of the rights of public authority, should tell us how it is possible to usurp that which does not exist, and how a power which is unable to exercise the authority which ought to belong to it, can reasonably complain when that authority passes into the hands of those who have force and skill to make use of it. At that time, the public authority did not at all complain of these pretended usurpations. Governments and nations looked upon them as just and legitimate; for, as we have said above, they were natural and necessary, they were brought about by the force of events, they were the result of the situation of affairs. Certainly, it would now seem extraordinary to see bishops provide for the security of roads, publish edicts against incendiaries, against robbers, against those who cut down olive-trees and commit other injuries of the kind; but, at the time we are speaking of, this proceeding was very natural, and more, it was necessary. Thanks to the care of the Church, to that incessant solicitude which has been since so inconsiderately blamed, the foundations of the social edifice, in which we now dwell in peace, were laid; an organization was realized which would have been impossible without the influence of religion and the action of ecclesiastical authority. If you wish to know whether any fact of which you have to judge is the result of the nature of things, or the fruit of well contrived combinations, observe the manner in which it appears, the places where it takes its rise, the times which witness its appearance; and if you shall find it reproduced at once in places far distant from each other, by men who can have had no concert, be assured that it is not the result of human contrivance, but of the force of events. These conditions are found united in a palpable manner in the action of the ecclesiastical power on public affairs. Open the Councils of those times, and everywhere the same facts meet your eyes; thus, to quote a few examples, the Council of Palentia, in the kingdom of Leon, held in 1129, decrees, in its 12th canon, exile or seclusion in a monastery, against those who attack the clergy, monks, merchants, pilgrims, and women. Let us pass into France; the Council of Clermont, in Auvergne, held in 1130, pronounces, in its 13th canon, excommunication against incendiaries. In 1157, the Council of Rheims, in the 3d canon, orders to be respected, during war, the persons of the clergy, of monks, women, travellers, laborers, and vine-dressers. Let us pass into Italy; the 11th Council of Lateran, a General Council, convoked in 1179, forbids, in its 22d canon, to maltreat or disturb monks, clergy, pilgrims, merchants, peasants, either travelling or engaged in the labors of agriculture, and animals laboring in the fields. In its 24th canon, the same Council excommunicates those who make slaves of; or rob, Christians on voyages of commerce, or for other lawful purposes; those who plunder the shipwrecked are subjected to the same penalty, unless they make restitution. Let us go to England; there the Council of Oxford, held -in 1222, by Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, forbids, by its 20th canon, any one to have robbers in their service. In Sweden, the Council of Arbogen; held in 1396, by Henry, Archbishop of Upsala, directs, by its 5th canon, that churchburial shall be refused to pirates, ravishers, incendiaries, highway robbers, oppressors of the poor, and other malefactors; so that in all parts, and at the same periods, we see the same fact appear, viz. the Church struggling against injustice and violence, and endeavoring to substitute in their stead the empire of law and justice. In what spirit must they read the history of the Church, who do not feel the beauty of the picture presented to us by the multitude of regulations, scarcely indicated here, all tending to protect the weak against the strong? The clergy and monks, on account of the weakness consequent on their peaceful profession, 'ROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 183 find in the canons which we have just quoted peculiar protection; but the same is granted to females, to pilgrims, to merchants, to villagers, travelling, or engaged in rural labors, and to beasts of labor-in a word, to all that is weak; and observe, that this protection is not a mere passing effort of generosity, but a system practised in widely different places, continued for centuries, developed and applied by all the means that charity suggests-a system inexhaustible in resources and contrivances, both in producing good and in preventing evil. And surely it cannot be said that the Church was influenced in this by views of selfinterest: what interested motive could she have in preventing the spoliation of an obscure traveller, the violence inflicted on a poor laborer, or the insult offered to a defenceless woman? The spirit whi,-h then animated her, whatever might be the abuses which were introduced du ing unhappy times, was, as it now is. the spirit of God himself-that spirit wLich continually communicates to her so marked an inclination towards goodness and justice, and always urges her to realize, by any possible means, her sublime desires. I leave the reader to judge whether or not the constant efforts of the Church to banish the dominion of force from the bosom of society were likely to improve manners. I now speak only of times of peace; for I need not stay to prove that during the time of war that influence must have had the happiest results. The vce victis of the ancients has disappeared from modern history, thanks to the divine religion which knew how to inspire man with new ideas and new feelings-thanks to the Catholic Church, whose zeal for the redemption of captives has softened the fierce maxims of the Romans, who, as we have seen, had considered it necessary to take from brave men the hope of being redeemed from servitude, when by the chances of war they had fallen into the hands of their enemies. The reader may revert to the seventh chapter of this work, and the third paragraph of the fifteenth note, where there are, in the original text, numerous documents that may be quoted in support of our assertion; he will thus be better able to judge of the gratitude which is due to the charity, disinterestedness, and indefatigable zeal of the Catholic Church in favor of the unfortunate, who groaned in bondage in the power of their enemies. We must also consider that, slavery once abolished, the system was necessarily improved; for if those who surrendered could no longer be put to death, or be kept in slavery, the only thing to be done was, to retain them for the time necessary to prevent their doing mischief, or until they were ransomed. Now, this is the modern system, which consists in retaining prisoners till the end of the war, or until they are exchanged. Although the amelioration of manners, as I have said above, consists, properly speaking, in the exclusion of force, we must yet avoid considering this exclusion of force in the abstract, and believing that such an order of things was possible, by virtue of the mere development of mind. All is connected in this world; it is not enough, to constitute the real improvement of manners, that they avoid violence as much as possible; they must also be benevolent. As long as they are not so, they will be less gentle than enervated; the use of force will not be banished from society, but it will remain artificially disguised. It will be understood, then, that we are obliged here to take a survey of the principle whence European civilization has drawn the spirit of benevolence which distinguishes it; we shall thus succeed in showing that the gentleness of our present manners is principally owing to Catholicity. There is, besides, in the examination of the principle of benevolence, so much importance of its own, independently of its connection with the question which now occupies us, that we cannot avoid devoting some pages to it, in the course of an analytical review of the elements of our civilization. (22) 184 CHAPTER XXXIII. ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC BENEFICENCE IN EUROPE. NEVER will manners be perfectly gentle without the existence of public bene, ficence; so that gentleness of manners and beneficence, although distinct, are sisters. Public beneficence, properly so called, was unknown among the ancients. Individuals might be beneficent there, but society was without compassion. Thus, the foundation of public establishments of beneficence formed no part of the system of administration among ancient nations. What, then, did they do with the unfortunate? We will answer with the author of the Genie de Christianisme, that they had no resources but infanticide and slavery. Christianity having become predominant everywhere, we see the authority of the Church employed in destroying the remains of cruel customs. In the year 442, the Council of Vaison, establishing a regulation for the legitimate possession of foundlings, decrees ecclesiastical censure against those who disturb by importunate reproaches charitable persons who have received children. The Council adopts this measure with the view of protecting a beneficent custom; for, adds the canon, these children were exposed to be eaten by dogs. There were still found fathers unnatural enough to kill their children. The Council of Lerida, held in 546, imposes seven years of penance on those who commit such a crime; and that of Toledo, held in 589, forbids, in the 17th canon, parents to commit this crime. Still, the difficulty did not consist in correcting these excesses; crimes thus opposed to the first notions of morality-so much in contradiction to the feelings of nature-tended to their own extirpation. Thedifficulty consisted in finding proper means to organize a vast system of beneficence, to provide constant succor, not only for children, but for old men, for the sick, for the poor incapable of living by their own labor; in a word, for all the necessitous. Familiarized as we are with such a system universally established, we see nothing in it but what is simple and natural; we can hardly find any merit in it. But let us suppose for a moment that such institutions do not exist; let us transport ourselves to the times when there was not even the first idea of them, what continued efforts would there not be required to establish and organize them! It is clear that by the mere extension of Christian charity in the world the various wants of humanity must have been more frequently succored, and with more efficacy, than they were before; and this even if we suppose that the exercise of charity was limited to purely individual means. Assuredly, there would always have been a great number of the faithful who would have remembered the doctrines and example of Jesus Christ. Our Saviour did not content Himself with teaching us by his discourses the obligation of loving our neighbor as ourselves, nor with a barren affection, but by giving food to the hungry, drink to the thirsty, clothes to the naked; by visiting the sick and prisoners. He showed us in his own conduct a model of the practice of charity. He could have shown in a thousand ways the power which belonged to Him in heaven and on earth; his voice could have controlled all the elements, stopped the motions of the stars, and suspended all the laws of nature; but He delighted above all in displaying his beneficence; He only attested his divinity by miracles which healed or consoled the unfortunate. His whole life is summed up in the sublime simplicity of these two words of the sacred text: pertransiit benefaciendo; He went about doing good. Whatever good might be expected from Christian charity when left to its own inspiration, and acting in a sphere purely individual, it was not desirable. to leave it in this state. It was necessary to realize it in permanent institutions, and not to leave the consolation of the unfortunate to the mercy of man PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 185 and passing circumstances;. this is the reason why there was so much wisdom and foresight in the idea of founding establishments of beneficence. It was the Church that conceived and executed this idea. Therein she only applied to a particular case her general rule of conduct; which is, never to leave to the will of individuals what can be connected with an institution: and observe, that this is one of the causes of the strength inherent in all that belongs to Catholicity. As the principle of authority in matters of faith preserves to her unity and constancy therein, so the rule of intrusting every thing to institutions secures the solidity and duration of all her works. These two principles have an intimate connection; for if you examine them attentively, the one supposes that she distrusts the intellect of man, the other, that she distrusts his individual will and capacity. The one supposes that man is not sufficient of himself to attain to, and preserve the knowledge of, certain truths; the other, that he is so feeble and capricious, that it is unwise to leave to his weakness and inconstancy the care of doing good. Now, neither one nor the other is injurious to man; neither one nor' the other lowers his proper dignity. The Church only tells him, that he is, in reality, subject to error, inclined to evil, inconstant in his designs, and very miserable in his resources. These are melancholy truths; but the experience of every day attests them, and the Christian religion explains them., by establishing, as a fundamental dogma, the fall of man in the person of our first parent. Protestantism, following principles diametrically opposite, applies the same spirit of individuality to the will as to the intelligence; it is even the natural enemy of institutions. Without going further than our present subject, we see that its first step, on its appearance, was to destroy what existed, without in any way replacing it. Will it be believed that Montesquieu went so far as to applaud this work of destruction? This is another proof of the fatal influence exerted over minds by the pestilential atmosphere of the last century: "Henri VIII.," says Montesquieu, "voulant reformer l'eglise d'Angleterre, d6truisit les moines: nation paresseuse elle-,neme, et qui entretenait la paresse des autres, parceque, practiquant l'hospitalite, une infinite de gens oisifs, gentilhommes et bourgeois, passoient leur vie a courir de couvent en couvent. 11 o6ta encore les hopitaux, oz le bas peuple trouvait sa subsistence, comme les gentilhommes trouvaient la leur dans les monasteres. Depuis ce changement, l'esprit de commerce et d'industrie s'6tablit en Angleterre." (De' Esprit des Lois, liv. xxiii. chap. 19.) That Montesquieu should praise this conduct of Henry VIII., and the destruction of monasteries, for the miserable reason, that it was good to deprive the idle of the hospitality of the monks, is a notion which ought not to astonish us, as such vulgar ideas were in accordance with the taste of the philosophy which had then begun to prevail. It attempted to find profound economical and political reasons for all that was in opposition to the institutions of Catholicity; and this was not difficult, for a prejudiced mind always finds in books, as well as in facts, what it seeks. We might inquire of Montesquieu, however, what is become of the property of the monasteries? As these rich spoils were in great part given to the same nobles who found hospitality with the monks, we might observe to him, that it was a singular way of diminishing the idleness of people, to give them as their own the property which they had previously enjoyed as guests. It cannot be denied, that to take to the houses of the nobles the property which had supported the hospitality which the monks showed them, was certainly to save them the trouble of running from monastery to monastery. But what we cannot tolerate is, to hear vaunted as a political chef-d'oeuvre, the suppression of the hospitals where the poor people found their subsistence. What I are these your lofty views, and is your philosophy so devoid of compassion, that you think the destruction of the asylums of misfortune proper means for encouraging industry and commerce? The worst of it is, that Montesquieu, seduced by the desire of offering new and piquant obser 24 Q2 186 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. vations. goes so far as to deny the utility of hospitals, pretending that, in Rome, they make all live in comfort except those who labor. He does not wish to have them in rich nations or in poor ones. He supports this cruel paradox by a reason stated in the following words:' Quand la nation est pauvre," says he, "la pauvrete particuliere derive de la misere generale, et elle est, pour ainsi dire, la misere gen6rale. Tous les hopitaux du monde ne sauraient guerir cette pauvrete particuliere; au contraire l'esprit de paresse qu'ils inspirent augmente la pauvrete gener'ale, et par consequent la partuicuiiire." Thus, hospitals are represented as dangerous to poor nations, and consequently condemned. Let us now listen to what is said of rich ones: "J'ai dit que les nations riches avaient besoin d'hopitaux, parceque la fortune y etait sujette a mille accidents; mais on sent que les recours passagers vaudraient bien nieux que les 6tablissements perpetuels. Le mal est momentan6; il faut done des secours de meme nature, et qui soient applicables a l'accident particulier." (De 1'Esprit des Lois, liv. xxiii. chap. 19.) It is difficult to find any thing more empty or more false. Undoubtedly, if we were to judge, by these passages, of the Esprit des Lois, the merit of which has been so much exaggerated, we should be compelled to condemn it in terms more severe than those employed by M. de Bonald, when he called it "the most profound of superficial works." Happily for the poor, and for the good order of society, Europe in general has not adopted these maxims; and on this point, as on many others, prejudices against Catholicity have been laid aside, in order to continue, with more or less modification, the system which she taught. We find in England herself a considerable number of establishments of beneficence; and it is not believed in that country that it is necessary, in order to excite the activity of the poor, to expose them to the danger of dying of hunger. We should always remember that the system of public establishments for beneficence, now general in Europe, would not. have existed without Catholicity; indeed, we may rest assured, that if the religious'schism had taken place before the foundation and organization of this system, European society would not now have enjoyed these establishments which do it so much honor, and are so precious an element of good government and public tranquillity. Tt is one thing to found and maintain an establishment of this kind, when a great number of similar ones already exist,-when governments possess immense resources, and strength sufficient to protect all interests; but it is a very different thing to establish a multitude of them in all places, when there is no model to be copied, when it is necessary to improvise in a thousand ways the indispensable resources,-when public authority has no prestige or force to control th'eviolent passions that struggle to gain every thing that they can feed on. Now, in modern times, since the existence of Protestantism, the first only of these things has been done; the second was accomplished centuries before by the Catholic Church; and let it be observed, that what has been done in Protestant countries in favor of public beneficence, has been done by administrative acts of the government, acts which were necessarily inspired by the view of the happy results already obtained from similar institutions. But Protestantism, by itself, considered as'a separate Church, has done nothing, and it could do nothing; for in all places where it preserves any thing of hierarchical organization, it is the miere instrument of the civil power; consequently it cannot there act by its own inspirations. Such is the vice of its constitution. Its prejudice against the religious institutions, both of men and women, make it sterile in this respect. Thus, indeed, it is deprived of one of the most powerful elements possessed by Catholicity to accomplish the most arduous and laborious works of charity. For the great works of charity, it is necessary to be free from worldly attachments and self-love; and these qualities are found in an eminent degree in persons who are devoted to charity in religious institutions. There they commence with that freedom which is the root of all the rest-the absence of self-love. PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 187 The Catholic Church has not been instigated to this by the civil power; she has considered it as one of her own peculiar duties to provide for the unfortunate. Her bishops have always been looked upon as the protectors and the natural inspectors of beneficent establishments. Therefore there was a law which placed hospitals under the charge of the bishops; and thence it comes that that class of charitable institutions has always occupied a distinguished place in canonical legislation. The Church, from remote times, has made laws concerning hospitals. Thus, we see the Council of Chalcedon place under the authority of the bishop the clergy residing in Ptochiis,-that is, as explained by Zonarus, in the establishments destined to support and provide for the poor: "Such," he says, "as those where orphans and the old and infirm are received and cared for." The Council makes use of this expression, according to the tradition of the holy Fathers; thereby indicating that regulations had been made of old by the Church concerning establishments of this kind. The learned also know what the ancient diaconies were,-places of charity, where poor widows, orphans, old men, and other unfortunate persons, were received. When the irruption of the barbarians had introduced everywhere the reign ot force, the possessions which hospitals already had, and those which they afterwards gained, were exposed to unbounded rapacity. The Church did all she could to protect them. It was forbidden to take them, under the severest penalties; those who made the attempt were punished as murderers of the poor. The Council of Orleans, held in 549, forbids, in its 13th canon, taking the property of hospitals; the 15th canon of the same Council confirms the foundation of a hospital at Lyons, a foundation due to the charity of King Childebert and Queen Ultrogotha. The Council takes measures to secure the safety and good management of the funds of that hospital; all violating these regulations are anathematized as guilty of homicide of the poor. We find, with respect to the poor, in very ancient Councils, regulations of charity and police at the same time, quite similar to measures now adopted in certain countries. For example, parishes are enjoined to make a list of their poor, to maintain them, &c. The Council of Tours, held in 566 or 567, by its 5th canon orders every town to maintain its poor; and the priests in the country, as well as the faithful, to maintain their own, in order to prevent mendicants from wandering about the towns and provinces. With respect to lepers, the 21st canon of the Council of Orleans, before quoted, prescribes to bishops to take particular care of these unfortunate beings in all diocesses, and to furnish them with food and clothing out of the Church funds; the Council of Lyons, held in 583, in its 6th canon ordains that the lepers of every town and territory shall be supported at the expense of the Church under the care of the bishop. The Church had a register of the poor, intended to regulate the distribution which was made to them of a portion of the ecclesiastical property; it was expressly forbidden to demand any thing from the poor for being inscribed in this book of charity. The Council of Rheims, held in 874, in the second of its five articles forbids receiving any thing from the poor thus inscribed, and that under pain of deposition. Zeal for improving the condition of prisoners, a kind of charity which has been so much displayed in modern times, is extreramly ancient in the Church. We must observe that in the sixth century there was already an inspector of prisons; the archdeacon or the provost of the church was obliged to visit prisoners on all Sundays; no class of criminals was excluded from the benefit of this solicitude. The archdeacon was bound to learn theii wants, and to furnish them, by means of a person recommended by the bishop: with food and all they stood in need of. This was ordered by the 20th canon of the Council of Orleans, held in 549. It would be too long to enumerate even a small part of the ordinances which attest the zeal of the Church for the comfort and consolation of the unfortunate; besides, it would be beyond my purpose, foi 188 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY'. I have only undertaken to compare the spirit of Protestantism with that of Catholicity with respect to works of charity. Yet, and as the development of this question has naturally led me to state several historical facts, I shall allude to the 141st canon of the Council of Aix-la-Chapelle, enjoining upon prelates to found, according to the example of their predecessors, a hospital to receive all the poor that the revenues of the Church were able to support. Prebendaries were bound to give to the hospital the tenth of their fruits; one of them was appointed to receive the poor and strangers, and to watch over the administration of the hospital. Such was the rule of prebendaries. In the rule destined for the canonesses, the same Council ordains that a hospital shall be established close to the house, and that it shall itself contain a place reserved for poor women. Therefore, were there seen, many centuries later, in various places, hospitals near to prebendal churches. As we approach our own times, we everywhere see innumerable institutions founded for charity. Ought we not to admire the fruitfulness with which there arise, on all sides, as many resources as are necessary to succour all the unfortunate? We cannot calculate with precision what would have happened if Protestantism had not appeared, but at least there is a conjecture authorized by reasons of analogy. If the development of European civilization had been fully carried out under the principle of religious unity, if the so-called Reformation had not plunged Europe into continual revolutions and reactions, there would certainly have been produced in the bosom of the Catholic Church some general system of beneficence, which, organized on a grand scale and in conformity with the new progress of society, would have been able to prevent or effectually to remedy the sore of pauperism, that cancer of modern nations. What was not to be expected from all the intelligence and all the resources of Europe, working in concert to obtain this great result? Unhappily, the unity of faith was broken; authority, the proper centre, past, present, and future, was rejected. From that time Europe, which was destined to become a nation of brothers, was changed into a most fiercely-contested battlefield. Hatred, engendered by religious differences, prevented any united efforts for new arrangements; and the necessities which arose out of the bosom of the social and political organization, which was for Europe the fruit of so many centuries of labor. could not be provided for. Bitter disputes, rebellions, and wars were acclimatized among us. Let us remember that the Protestant schism not only prevented the union of all the efforts of Europe to attain the end in question, but, moreover, it has been the reason why Catholicism has not been able to act in a regular manner.even in those countries where it has preserved its complete empire, or a decided predominance. In these countries it has been compelled to hold itself in an attitude of defence; it has been obliged, by the attacks of its enemies, to employ a great part of its resources in defending its own existence: it is very probably for this reason that the state of things in Europe is entirely different from what it would have been on a contrary supposition; and perhaps in the latter case there would not have existed the sad necessity of exhausting itself in impotent efforts against an evil, which, according to all appearances, and unless hitherto unknown means can be devised, appears without remedy. I shall be told that the Church in this case would have had an excessive authority over all that relates to charity, and would have unjustly usurped the civil power. This is a mistake; the Church has never claimed any thing that is not quite conformable to her indelible character of protector of all the unfortunate. During some centuries, it is true, we hardly hear any other voice or. perceive any other action than hers, in all that relates to beneficence; but we must observe that the civil power during that time was very far from possessing a regular and vigorous administration, capable of d )ing without the aid of the Church The latter was so far from being actu PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 189 ated by any motives of ambition, that her double charge of spiritual and temporal things imposed on her all sorts of sacrifices. Three centuries have'passed away since the event of which we now lament the fatal results. Europe during this period has been submitted in great part to the influence of Protestantism, but it has made no progress thereby. I cannot believe that these three centuries would have passed away under the exclusive influence of Catholicity, without producing in the bosom of Europe a degree of charity sufficient to raise the system of beneficence to the height demanded by the difficulties and new interests of society. If we look at the different systems which ferment in minds devoted to the study of this grave question, we shall always find there association under one form or another. Now association has been at all times one of the favorite principles of Catholicity, which, by proclaiming unity in faith, proclaims it also in all things; but there is this difference, that a great number of associations which are conceived and established in our days are nothing but an agglomeration of interests; they want unity of will and of aim, conditions which can be obtained only by means of Christian charity. Yet these two conditions are indispensably necessary to accomplish great works of beneficence, if any thing else is required than a mere measure of public administration. As to the administration itself, it is of little avail when it is not vigorous; and unfortunately, in acquiring the necessary vigor, its action becomes somewhat stiff and harsh. Therefore it is that Christian charity is required, which, penetrating on all sides like a balsam, softens all that is harsh in human action. I pity the unfortunate who in their necessities find only the succor of the civil authorities, without the intervention of Christian charity. In reports presented to the public, philanthropy may and will exaggerate the care which it lavishes on the unfortunate, but things will not be so in reality. The love of our brethren, when it is not founded on religious principle, is as fruitful in words as it is barren in deeds. The sight of the poor, of the sick, of impotent old age, is too disagreeable for us long to bear it, unless we are urged to it by very powerful motives. Even much less can we hope that a vague feeling of humanity will suffice to make us encounter, as we should, the constant cares required to console these unfortunate beings. When Christian charity is wanting, a good administration will no doubt enforce punctuality and exactitude -all that can be demanded of men who receive'a salary for their services: but one thing will be wanting, which nothing can replace and money cannot buy, viz. love. But it will be asked, have you no faith in philanthropy? No; for as M. de Chateaubriand says, philanthropy is only the false coin of charity. It was then perfectly reasonable that the Church should have a direct influence in all branches of beneficence, for she knew better than any others how to make Christian charity active, by applying it to all kinds of necessities and miseries. Therein she did not gratify her ambition, but found food for her zeal; she did not claim a privilege, but exerted a right. In fine, if you will persevere in calling such a desire ambition, you cannot deny at least that it was ambition of a new kind. An ambition truly worthy of glory and reward, is that which claims the right of succoring and consoling the unfortunate. (23) CHAPTER XXXIV. ON TOLERATION IN RELIGIOUS MATTERS. THE question of the improvement of manners, treated in the preceding chapters, naturally leads me to another, sufficiently thorny in itself, and rendered still more so by innumerable prejudices. I allude to toleration in matters of religion. The word Catholicity, to certain persons, is the synonyme of intole 190 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITU. CATHOLICITY. rance; and the confusion of ideas on this point has become such, that no more laborious task can be undertaken than to clear them up. It is only necessary to pronounce the word intolerance, to raise in the minds of some people all sorts of black and horrible ideas. Legislation, institutions, and men of past times, all are condemned without appeal, the moment there is seen the slightest appearance of intolerance. More than one cause contributes to this universal prejudice. Yet, if called upon to point out the principal one, we would repeat the profound maxim of Cato, who, when accused at the age of eighty-six of certain offences of his past life, committed at times long gone by, said, "It is difficult to render an account of one's own conduct to men belonging to an age different from that in which one has lived." There are some things of which one cannot accurately judge without, not only a knowledge of them, but also a complete appreciation of the times when they occurred. How many men are capable of attaining to this? There are few who are able to succeed in freeing their minds from the influence of the atmosphere which surrounds them; but there are'fewer still who can do the same with their hearts. The age in which we live is precisely the reverse of the ages of intolerance; and this is the first difficulty which meets us in discussing questions of this kind. The prejudice and' bad faith of some who have applied themselves to this subject, have contributed also in a considerable degree to erroneous opinions. There is nothing in the world which cannot be undervalued by showing only one side of it; for thus considered, all things are false, or rather are not themselves. All bodies have three dimensions; only to look at one is not to form an idea of the body itself, but of a quantity very different from it. Take any institution, the most just and useful that can be imagined, then all the inconveniences and evils which it has. caused, taking care to bring together into a few pages what in reality was spread over a great many ages; then your history will be disgusting, hideous, and worthy of execration. Let a partisan of democracy describe to you in a narrow compass, and by means of historical facts, all the inconveniences and evils of monarchy, the vices and the crimes of kings; how will monarchy then appear to you? But let a partisan of monarchy paint to you, in his tuin, by the same method of historical facts, democracy and demagogues; and what will you then think of democracy? Assemble in one picture all the evils occasioned to nations by a high degree of development of the social state; civilization and refinement will then appear detestable. By seeking and selecting in the annals of the human mind certain traits, the history of science may be made the history of folly, and even of crime. By heaping together the fatal accidents that have occurred to masters of the healing art, their beneficent profession may be represented as a career of homicide. In a word, every thing may be falsified by proceeding in this way. God himself would appear to us as a monster of cruelty and tyranny, if, taking away his goodness, wisdom, and justice, we only attended to the evils which we see in a world created by his power and governed by his providence. Having laid down these principles, let us apply them. The spirit of the age, particular circumstances, and an order of things quite different from ours, are all forgotten, and the history of the religious intolerance of Catholics is composed by taking care to condense into a few pages, and paint in the blackest colours; the severity of Ferdinand and Isabella, of Philip II., of Mary of England, of Louis XIV., and every thing of the kind that occurred during three centuries. The reader who receives, almost at the same moment, the impression of events which occurred during a period of three hundred years,-the reader, accustomed to live in society where prisons are being converted into houses of recreation, and where the punishment of death is vigorously opposed, can he behold the appearance of darksome dungeons, the instruments of punish. ment, the sanbenitos and scaffolds, without being deeply moved? He will be. PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 191 wail the unfortunate lot of those who perish; he will be indignant against the authors of what he calls horrible atrocities. Nothing has been said to this candid reader of the principles and conduct of Protestants at the same time; he has not been reminded of the cruelty of Henry VIII. and of Elizabeth of England. Thus all his hatred is directed against Catholics, and he is accustomed to regard Catholicity as a religion of tyranny and blood. But will a judgment thus formed be just? Will this be a sentence passed with a full knowledge of the cause? What would impartiality direct us to do, if we met with a dark picture, painted in the way we have described, of monarchy, democracy, or civilization, of science, or of the healing art? What we should do, or rather what we ought to do, is to extend our view further, to examine the subject in its different phases; to inquire into its good as well as its evil: this would be to look upon these evils as they really are, that is, spread at great distances over the course of centuries; this would weaken the impression they had made upon us: in a word, we should thus be just, we should take the balance in hand to weigh the good and evil, to compare the one with the other, as we ought always to do when we have duly to appreciate things in the history of humanity. In the case in question, we should act in the same way, in order to provide against the error into which we may be led by the false statements and exaggerations of certain men, whose evident intention it has been to falsify facts by representing only one side of them. The Inquisition no longer exists, and assuredly there is no probability of its being re-established; the severe laws in force on this matter in former times no longer exist; they are either abrogated or they are fallen into desuetude: no one, therefore, has an interest in representing this institution in a false point of view. It may be imagined that some men had an interest in this while they were engaged in destroying their ancient laws, but that once attained, the Inquisition and its laws are become a historical fact, which ought to be examined here with attention and impartiality. We have here two questions, that of principle, and that of its application; in other words, that of intolerance, and that of the manner of showing it. We must not confound these two things, which, although very closely connected, are very different. I shall begin with the first. The principle of universal toleration is now proclaimed, and all kind of intolerance is condemned without appeal. But who takes care to examine the real meaning of these words? who undertakes to analyze the ideas which they contain by the light of reason, and explain them by means of history and experience? Very few. They are pronounced mechanically; they are constantly employed to establish propositions of the highest importance, without even the suspicion that they contain ideas, the right or wrong comprehension and application of which is every thing for the preservation of society. Few persons consider that these words include questions as profound as they are delicate, and the whole of a large portion of history; very few observe that, according to one solution given to the problem of toleration, all the past is condemned, and all the present overturned; nothing is left thereby to build on for the'future but a moving bed of sand. Certainly, the most convenient way in such a case is, to adopt and employ these words such as we already find them in circulation, in the same way as we take and circulate the current coin, without considering whether it be composed of alloy or not. But what is the most convenient is not always the most useful; and, as when receiving coins of value, we carefully examine them, so we ought to weigh words the meaning of which is of such paramount importance. Toleration-what is the meaning of this word? It means, properly speaking, the patience with which we suffer a thing which we judge to be bad, but which we think it desirable not to punish. Thus, some kinds of scandals are tolerated; prostitutes are tolerated; such and such abuses,re tolerated; so that the idea of toleration is always accompanied by 192 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. the idea of evil. When toleration is exercised in the order of ideas, it always supposes a misunderstanding, or error. No ofie will say that he tolerates the truth. We have an observation to make here. The phrase to tolerate opinions is commonly used: now, opinion is very different from error. At first sight, the difficulty appears great; but if we examine the thing well, we shall be able to explain it. When we say that we tolerate an opinion, we always mean an opinion contrary to our own. In this case, the opinion of another is, according to us, an error; for it is impossible to have an opinion on any point whateverthat is, to think that a thing is or is not, is in one way or in another-without thinking at the same time that those who judge otherwise are deceived. If oui opinion is only an opinion-that is, if our judgment, although based on reasons which appear to us to be good, has not attained to a degree of complete certainty-our judgment of another will be only a mere opinion; but if our conviction has become completely established and confirmed-that is, if it has attained to certainty-we shall be sure that those who form a judgment opposed to ours are deceived. Thence it follows, that the word toleration, applied to opinions, always means the toleration of an error. He who says, yes, thinks no is false; and he who says, no, thinks yes is a mistake. This is only an application of the well-known principle, that it is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be at the same time. But, we shall be asked, What do you mean when you use these words,'to respect opinions?' is it always understood that we respect errors? No; for these words can have two different and equally reasonable meanings. The first is founded on the feebleness of the conviction of the person from whom the respect comes. When on any particular point we have only just formed an opinion, it is understood that we have not reached certainty; consequently, we know that there are reasons on the other side. In this sense, we may well say that we respect the opinions of others: we express thereby our conviction that it is possible that we are deceived-that it is possible the truth is not on our side. In the second meaning, to respect opinions is to respect, sometimes those who profess them, sometimes their good faith, sometimes their intentions. Thus, when we say that we respect prejudices, it is clear that we do not mean a real respect professed in this place. We see thus, that the expression' to respect the opinions of others' has a very different meaning, according as the person from whom the respect comes has or has not assured convictions in the contrary sense. In order the better to understand what toleration is, what its origin and itb effects, it is necessary, before we examine it in society, to reduce it to its simplest element. Let us analyze toleration considered in the individual. An individual is called tolerant, when he is habitually in a disposition of mind to bear without irritation or disturbance opinions contrary to his own. This toleration will bear different names, according to the different matters to which it relates. In religious matters, tolerance as well as intolerance may be found in those who have religion as well as in those who have none; so that neither of these situations, with respect to religion, necessarily implies the one or the other. Some people imagine that tolerance is peculiar to the incredulous, and intolerance to the religious; but they are mistaken. Who is more tolerant than St. Francis de Sales? who more intolerant than Voltaire? Tolerance in religious men-that tolerance which does not come from want of faith, and which is not inconsistent with an ardent zeal for the preservation and propagation of the faith-is born of two principles, charity and humility. Charity, which makes us love all men, even our greatest enemies; charity, which inspires us with compassion for their faults and errors, and obliges us to regard them as brothers, to employ all the means in our power to withdraw them from being fatally deceived; charity, which forbids us ever to regard them as deprived of the hope of salvation as long as they live. Rousseau has said, that PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICTTY. 193 "it is impossible to live in peace with those that one believes to be damned." We do not, and we cannot, believe in the condemnation of any man as long as he lives; however great may be his iniquity, the mercy of God and the value of the blood of Jesus Christ are still greater. We are so far from thinking with the philosopher of Geneva, "that to love such people would be to hate God," that no one could maintain such a doctrine among us without ceasing to belong to our faith. The other source of tolerance is Christian humility: humility, which inspires us with a profound sense of our weakness, and makes us consider all that we have as given by God; humility, which makes us consider our advantages over our neighbor as so many more powerful motives for acknowledging the liberality of Providence; humility, which, placing before our eyes the spectacle of humanity in its proper light, makes us regard ourselves and all others as members of the great family of the human race, fallen from its ancient dignity by the sin of our first parent; humility, which shows us the perverse inclinations of our hearts, the darkness of our minds, and the claims which man has to pity and indulgence in his faults and errors; humility, that virtue sublime even in its abasement. "If humility is so pleasing to God," is the admirable observation of St. Theresa, " it is because it is the truth." This is the virtue which renders us indulgent towards all men, by never allowing us to forget that we ourselves, perhaps, more than any others, have need of indulgence. Yet for a man to be tolerant, in the full extent of the word, it is not enough for him to be humble and charitable; this is a truth which experience teaches and reason explains to us. In order perfectly to clear up a point, the obscurity of which produces the confusion which almost always prevails in these questions, let us make a comparison between two men equally religious, whose principles are the same, but whose conduct is very different. Let us suppose two priests both distinguished for learning and eminent virtue. The one has passed his life in retirement, surrounded by pious persons, and having no intercourse with any but Catholics: the other has been a missionary in countries where different religions are established, he has been obliged to live and converse with iien of creeds different from his own; he has been under the necessity of witnessing the establishment of temples of a false religion close to those of the true one. The principles of Christian charity will be the same with both these priests; both will look upon faith as a gift of God, which he has received, and must preserve; their conduct, however, will be very different, if they meet with a man of a faith different from their own, or of none at all. The first, who, never having had intercourse with any but the faithful, has always heard religion spoken of with respect, will be horrified, will be indignant, at the first word he shall hear against the faith or ceremonies of the Church; it will be impossible, or nearly so, for him to remain calm during a conversation or discussion on the question: the second, accustomed to such things, to hear his faith impugned, to dispute with men of creeds opposed to his own, will remain tranquil; he will engage in a discussion with coolness, if it be necessary; he will skilfully avoid one, if prudence shall advise such a course. Whence comes this difference? It is not difficult to discover. The second of these priests, by intercourse with men, by experience, by contradiction, has obtained a clear notion of the real condition of men's minds in the world; he is aware of the fatal combination of circumstances which has led a great number of unfortunate persons into error, and keeps them there; he knows how, in some measure, to put himself in their place; and the more lively is his sense of the benefit conferred upon him by Providence, the more mild and indulgent he is towards others. The other may be as virtuous, as charitable, and as humble as you please; but how can you expect of him that he will not be deeply moved, and give utterance to his indignation, the first time that he hears that denied which he has always believed with the most lively faith? He has up to this time met 25 R 194 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. with no opposition in the world, but a few arguments in books. Certainly he was not ignorant that there existed heretics and unbelievers, but he has not frequently met with them, he has not heard them state their hundred different systems, and he has not witnessed the erroneous creeds of men of all sorts, of different characters, and the most varied minds; the lively susceptibility of his mind, which has never met with resistance, has not been blunted; for this reason, although endowed with the same virtues, and, if you will, with the same knowledge as the other, he has not acquired that penetration, that vivacity, so to speak, with which a man of practised intellect enters into the minds of those with whom he has to deal, discerns the reasons, seizes the motives which blind them and hinder them from obtaining a knowledge of the truth. Thus tolerance, in a person who is religious, supposes a certain degree of gentleness of mind, the fruit of intercourse with men, and the habits thereby engendered; yet this quality is consistent with the deepest conviction, and the purest and most ardent zeal for the propagation of the truth. In the moral, as in the physical world, friction polishes, use wears away, and nothing can remain for a long time in an attitude of violence. A man will be indignant, once, twice, a hundred times, when he hears his manner of thinking attacked; but it is impossible for him to remain so always; he will, in the end, become accustomed to opposition; he will, by habit, bear it calmly. However sacred may be his articles of belief, he will content himself with defending and putting them forward at convenient opportunities; in all other cases, he will keep them in the bottom of his soul, as a treasure which he is desirous to preserve from any thing that may injure them. Tolerance, then, does not suppose any new principles in a man, but rather a quality acquired by practice; a disposition of mind, into which a man finds himself insensibly led; a habit of patience, formed in him by constantly having to bear with what he disapproves of. Now, if we consider tolerance in men who are not religious, we shall observe that there are two ways of being irreligious. There are men who not only have no religion, but who have an animosity against it, either on account of some fatal error they entertain, or because they find it an obstacle to their designs. These men are extremely intolerant; and their intolerance is the worst of all, because it is not accompanied by any moral principle which can restrain it. A man thus circumstanced feels himself, as it were, continually at war with himself and the human race; with himself, because he must stifle the cries of his own conscience: with the human race, because all protest against the mad doctrine that pretends to banish the worship of God from the earth. Therefore we find among men of this kind much rancor and spleen; therefore their words are full of gall; therefore they have constantly recourse to raillery, insult, and calumny. But there is another class of men who, although devoid of religion, are not strongly prejudiced against the faith. They live in a kind of skepticism, into which the reading of bad books, or the observations of a superficial and frivolous philosophy, have led them; they are not attached to religion, but they are not its enemies. Many of them acknowledge the importance of religion for the good of society, and some of them even feel within themselves a certain desire to return to the faith; in their moments of recollection and meditation, they remember with pleasure the days when they offered to God an obedient spirit and a pure heart; and at the sight of the rapid course of life, they perhaps love to cherish the hope of becoming reconciled with the God of their fathers, before they descend into the grave.'These men are tolerant; but, if carefully examined, their tolerance is not a principle or a virtue, it is only a necessity resulting from their position. It is difficult to be indignant at the opinions of others, when we have none of our own-when, consequently, we do not come into collision with any. It is difficult to be violently opposed to religion, when PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICIrY. 195 we consider it as a thing necessary for the welfare of society; there can be no hatred or rancor towards faith in a soul which desires its mercy, and which, perhaps, fixes its eyes upon it as the last beam of hope amid the terrors of an alarming future. Tolerance, in this case, is nothing strange; it is natural and necessary. Intolerance would be inconceivable and extravagant, and could arise only from a bad heart. In applying these remarks to society instead of individuals, it must be observed that tolerance, as well as intolerance, may be considered in government, or in society. It sometimes happens that government and society are not agreed; while the former maintains one principle, the reverse may prevail in the latter. As governments are composed of a limited number of individuals, all that has been said of tolerance, considered individually, may be applied to them. Let us not forget, however, that men placed in authority are not free to give themselves up without limit to the impulses of their own opinions or feelings; they are often forced to immolate their own feelings on the altar of public opinion. They may, owing to peculiar circumstances, oppose or impede that opinion for a time; but it will soon stop them, and force them to change their course. As sooner or later government becomes the expression of the ideas and feelings of society, we shall content ourselves with considering tolerance in the latter; we shall observe that society, with respect to tolerance, follows the same path as individuals. This is with it not the effect of a principle, but of a habit Men of different creeds, who live together for a long time in the same society, end by tolerating each other; they are led to this by growing weary of collision with each other, and by the wish for a kind of life more quiet and peaceful But when men, thus divided in creed, find themselves face to face for the first time, a shock more or less rude is the inevitable result. The causes of this phenomenon are to be found in human nature itself; it is one of those necessities against which we struggle in vain. Some modern philosophers have imagined that society is indebted to them for the spirit of toleration which prevails there; they have not seen that it is much rather a fact slowly brought about by the force of circumstances, than it is the fruit of their doctrines. Indeed, what have they said that is new? They have recommended universal fraternity; but this has always been one of the doctrines of Christianity. They have exhorted men of all the different religions to live in peace together; but before they had opened their mouths to tell them this, men began to adopt this course in many countries of Europe; for, unhappily, religions in many countries were so numerous and different, that none of them could pretend to exclusive dominion. It is true that some infidel philosophers have a claim, and a deplorable one, in support of their pretensions with respect to the development of toleration; it is, that, by their efforts to disseminate infidelity and skepticism, they have succeeded in making general, in nations and governments, that false toleration which has nothing virtuous, but is indifference with respect to all religions. Indeed, why is tolerance so general in our age? or, rather, in what does our tolerance consist? If you observe well, you will find that it is nothing but the result of a social condition perfectly similar to that of the individual who has no creed, but who does not hate creeds, because he considers them as conducive to the public good, and cherishes a vague hope of one day finding a last asylum therein. All that is good in this is in no degree owing to the infidel philosophers, but may rather be said to be a protest against them. Indeed, when they could not obtain the supreme command, they lavished calumnies and sarcasms on all that is most sacred in heaven and on earth; and, when they did raise themselves to power, they overturned with indescribable fury all that existed, and destroyed millions of victims in exile or on the scaffolds. The multitude of religions,-infidelity, indifference; the improvement 1t)6 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. of manners, the lassitude produced by wars,-industrial and commercial organization, which every day becomes more powerful in society,-communication rendered more frequent among men by means of travelling,-the diffusion of ideas by the press;-such are the causes which have produced in Europe that universal tolerance which has taken possession. of all, and.has been established in fact when it could not by law. These causes, as it is easy. to observe, areof different kinds; no doctrine can pretend to an exclusive influence; they are the result of a thousand different influences, which act simultaneously on the development of civilization. (24) CHAPTER XXXV. ON THE RIGHT OF COERCION IN GENERAL. How much, during the last century, was said against intolerance! A philosophy less superficial than that which then prevailed would have reflected a little more on a fact which may be appreciated in different ways, but the existence of which cannot be denied. In Greece, Socrates died drinking hemlock. Rome, whose tolerance has been so much vaunted, tolerated, indeed, foreign gods; but these were only foreign in name, since they formed a part of that system of pantheism which was the foundation of the Roman religion; gods, who, in. order to be declared gods of Rome, only needed the mere formality, as it were, of receiving the name of citizens. But Rome did not admit the gods of Egypt any more than the Jewish or Christian religion. She had, no doubt, many false ideas with respect to these religions; but she was sufficiently acquainted with them to know that they were essentially different from her own.; The history of the Pagan emperors is the history of the persecution of the Church; as soon as they became Christians, a system of penal legislation was commenced against those who differed from the religion of the state. In subsequent centuries, intolerance continued under various forms; it has been perpetuated down to our times, and we are not so free from it as some would wish to make us believe. The emancipation of Catholics in England is but of recent date; the violent disputes of the Prussian government with the Pope, on the subject of certain arbitrary acts of that government against the Catholic religion, are of yesterday; the question of Argau, in Switzerland, is still pending; and the persecution of Catholicity by the Russian government is pursued in as scandalous a manner as at any former period. Thus it is with religious sects. As to the toleration of the humane philosophers of the 18th century, it was exemplified in Robespierre. Every government professing a religion is more or less intolerant towards those which it does not profess; and this intolerance is diminished or destroyed, only when the professors of the obnoxious religions are either feared on account of their great power, or despised on account of their weakness. Apply to all times and countries the rule which we have just laid down, you will everywhere find it exact; it is an abridgment of the history of governments in their relations with religions. The Protestant government of England has always been intolerant toward Catholics; and it will continue to be so, more or less, according to circumstances. The governments of Russia and Prussia will continue to act as they have done up to this time, with the exception of modifications required by difference of times; in the same way, in countries where Catholicity prevails, the exercise of the Protestant worship will, always be more or less interfered with. I shall be told of the instance of France as a proof of the contrary; in that country, where the immense majority profess the Catholic religion, other worships are allowed, without any disposition on the part of the PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 197 state to disturb them. This toleration will perhaps be attributed to public opinion; it comes, I think, from this, that no fixed principle prevails there in the government: all the policy of France, internal and external, is a constant compromise to get out of difficulties in the best possible way. This is shown by facts; it appears from the well-known opinions of the small number of men who, for some years, have ruled the destinies of France. It has been attempted to establish in principle universal toleration, and refuse to government the right of violating consciences in religious matters; nevertheless, in spite of all that has been said, philosophers have not been able to make a very clear exposition of their principle, still less have they been able to procure its general adoption as a system in the government of states. In order to show that the thing is not quite so simple as has been supposed, I will beg leave to ask a.few questions of these soi-disant philosophers. If a religion which required human sacrifices were established in your country, would you tolerate it? No. And why? Because we cannot tolerate such a crime. But then you will be intolerant; you will violate the consciences of others, by proscribing, as a crime, what in their eyes is a homage to the Divinity. Thus thought many nations of old, and so think some now. By what right do you make your conscience prevail over theirs?-It matters not; we shall be intolerant, but our intolerance will be for the good of humanity.-I applaud your conduct; but you cannot deny that it is a case in which intclerance with respect to a religion appears to you a right and a duty. Still further: if you proscribe the exercise of this atrocious worship, would you allow the doctrine to be taught which preaches as holy-and salutary the practice of human sacrifices? No; for that would be permitting the teaching of murder. Very well, but you must acknowledge that this is a doctrine with respect to which you have a right to be, and are obliged to be, intolerant. Let us pursue our subject. You are aware, no doubt, of the sacrifices offered in antiquity to the goddess of Love, and the infamous worship which was paid to her in the temples of Babylon and Corinth. If such a worship reappeared among you, would you tolerate it? No; for it is contrary to the sacred laws of modesty. Would you allow the doctrine on which it was based to be taught? No; for the same reason. This, then, is another case in which you believe you have the right and the obligation to violate the consciences of others; and the only reason you can assign for it;s, that you are compelled to do so by your own conscience. Moreover, supnose that some men, over-excited by reading the Bible, desired to estiblish, new Christianity, in imitation of Mathew of Haarlem or John of Leydnn; suppose that these sectaries began to propagate their doctrines, to assemble together in bodies, and that their fanatical declamation seduced a port.on of the people, would you tolerate this new religion? No; for these men might renew the bloody scenes of Germany in *he 16th century, when, in tho name of God, and to fulfil, as they said, the Irder of the Mast Higb, the Anabaptists invaded all property, destroyed all existing power, aD.l spread everywhere desolation and death. This would be wo act with as nueh justice as prudence; but you cannot deny that you would thereby commit. an act of intolerance. What, then, becomes of universal tolecation, that principle so evident, so predominant, if you are compelled at every step to lirtp, and I will say more, to lay it aside, and act in a way diametrically oppo0itP to it? You will say that the security of the state, the good order of sociefy, and public morality compel you to act in this way. But then, what sort of a principle is it that, in certain cases, is in opposition to the interests of morality and to society, and to the safety of the state?. Do you think that the men against whom you declaim did not intend also to protect these interests, by acting with that intolerance which is so revolting to you? It has been acknowledged at all times and in all countries, as an incontestable principle, that the public authority has, in certain cases, the right of prohibiting R2 198 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. certain acts, in violation of the consciences of individuals who claim the right of performing them. If the constant testimony of history were not enough, at least the dialogue which we have just held ought to convince us of this truth; we have seen that the most ardent advocates of tolerance may well be compelled, in certain cases, to be intolerant. They would be obliged to be so in the name of humanity, of modesty, of public order; universal toleration, then, with respect to doctrines and religions-that toleration which is proclaimed as the duty of every government-is an error; it is a theory which cannot be put in practice. We have clearly shown that intolerance has always been, and still is, a principle recognised by all governments, and the application of which, more or less indulgent or severe, depends on circumstances, and above all, on the particular point of view in which the government considers things. A great question of right now presents itself-a question which seems, at first sight, to require to be solved by condemning all intolerance, both with respect to doctrines and acts; but which, when thoroughly examined, leads to a very different result. If we grant that the mind is incapable of completely removing the difficulty by means of direct reasoning, it is not the less certain that indirect means, and the reasoning called ad absurdumn, are here sufficient to show us the truth, at least as far as it is necessary for us to know it as a guide for human prudence, always uncertain. The question is this: " By what right do you hinder a man from professing a doctrine, and acting in conformity with it, if he is convinced that it is true, and that he only fulfils his duty, or exercises a right, by acting as it prescribes?" In order to prevent the prohibition being vain and ridicu-. lous, there must be a penalty attached to it; now, if you inflict this penalty, you punish a man who, according to his own conscience, is innocent. Punishment by the hand of justice supposes culpability; and no one is culpable without being so first in his conscience. Culpability has its root in the conscience; and we cannot be responsible for the violation of a law, unless that law has addressed us through our conscience. If our conscience tells us that an action is bad, we cannot perform it, whatever may be the injunctions of the law which prescribes it; on the contrary, if conscience tells us that an action is a duty, we cannot omit it, whatever may be the prohibitions of the law. This is, in a few words, and in all its force, the whole argument that can be alleged against intolerance in regard to doctrines and facts emanating from them. Let us now see what is the real value of these observations, apparently so conclusive. It is apparent that the admission of this principle would render impossible the punishment of any political crime. Brutus, when plunging his dagger into the heart of Caesar; Jacques Clement, when he assassinated Henry III., acted, no doubt, under the influence of an excitement of mind, which made them view their attempts as deeds of heroism; and yet, if they had both been brought before a tribunal, would you have thought them entitled to impunity-the one on account of his love of country, and the other on account of his zeal for religion? Most political crimes are committed under a conviction of doing well; and I do not speak merely of those times of trouble, when men of parties the most opposed are fully persuaded that they have right on their side. Conspiracies contrived against governments in times of peace are generally the work of some individuals who look upon them as illegal and tyrannical; when working to overthrow them, they are acting in conformity with their own principles. Judges punish them justly when they inflict on them the penalties appointed by legislators; and yet, neither legislators when they decree the penalty, nor the judges when they inflict it, are, or can be, ignorant of the condition of mind of the delinquent who has violated the law. It may be said, that compassion and indulgence with respect to political crimes increase every day, for these reasons. I shall reply, that if we lay down the principle that human justice has not the right to punish, when the delinquent acts according to his convic PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 199 tion, we iriust not only mitigate our punishments, but even abolish them. In this case, capital punishment would be a real murder, a fine a robbery, and other penalties so many acts of violence. I shall remark in passing, that it is not true that severity towards political crimes diminishes as much as it is said to do; the history of Europe of late years affords us some proofs to the contrary. We do not now see those cruel punishments which were in use at other times; but that is not owing to the conscience of the criminal being considered by the judge, but to the improvement of manners, which, being everywhere diffused, has necessarily influenced penal legislation. It is extraordinary that so much severity has been preserved in laws relating to political crimes, when so great a number of legislators among the different nations of Europe knew well that they themselves, at other times, had committed the same crimes. And there is no doubt that more than one man, in the discussion of certain penal laws, has inclined to indulgence, from the presentiment that these very laws might one day apply to himself. The impunity of political crimes would bring about the subversion of social order, by rendering all government impossible. Without dwelling longer on the fatal results which this doctrine would have, let us observe, that the benefit of impunity in favor of the illusions of conscience would not be due to political crimes alone, but would be applicable also to those of an ordinary kind. Offences against property are crimes of this nature; and yet we know that many at former periods regarded, and that unfortunately some still regard, property as a usurpation and an injustice. Offences against the sanctity of marriage are ordinarily considered crimes; and yet have there not been sects in whose sight marriage was unlawful, and others who have desired, and still desire, a community of women? The sacred laws of modesty and respect for innocence have alike been regarded by some sects as an unjust infringement of the liberty of man; to violate these laws, therefore, was a meritorious action. At the time when the mistaken ideas and blind fanaticism of the men who professed these principles were undoubted, would any one have been found to deny the justice of the chastisement which was inflicted on them when, in pursuance of their doctrines, they committed a crime, or even when they had the audacity to diffuse their fatal maxims in society? If it were unjust to punish the criminal for acting according to his conscience, all imaginable crimes would be permitted to the atheist, the fatalist, the disciple of the doctrine of private interest; for by destroying, as they do, the basis of all morality, these men do not act against their consciences; they have none. If such an argument were to hold good, how often would we have reason to charge tribunals with injustice, when they inflict any punishment on men of this class. By what right, we would say to magistrates, do you punish this man, who, not admitting the existence of God, does not acknowledge himself culpable in his own eyes, or consequently in yours? You have made a law, by virtue of which you punish him; but this law has no powerover the conscience of this man, for you are his equals; and he does not acknowledge the existence of any superior, to give you the power of controlling his liberty. By what right do you punish another, who is convinced that all his actions are the effect of necessary causes, that free-will is a chimera, and who, in the action which you charge on him as a crime, believes that he had no more power of restraining himself than the wild beast, when he throws himself upon the prey before his eyes, or upon any other animal that excites his fury? With what justice do you punish him, who is persuaded that all morality is a lie; that there is no other principle than individual interest; that good and evil are nothing but this interest, well or ill understood? If you make him' undergo any punishment, it will not be because he is culpable in his own conscience; you will punish him for being deceived in his calculation, for having ill-understood the probable result of the action which he was about to commit. Such are the necessary and inevitable 200 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. deductions from the doctrine, which refuses to the public authority the power of punishing crimes committed in consequence of an error of the mind. But I shall be told that the right of punishment only extends to actions, and not to doctrines; that actions ought to be subject to the law, but that doctrines are entitled to unbounded liberty. Do you mean doctrines shut up in the mind and not outwardly manifested? It is clear that not.only.the right, but also the possibility of punishing them is wanting, for God alone can tell the secrets of the heart of man. If avowed doctrines are meant, then the principle is false; and we have just shown that those who maintain it in theory, find it impossible to reduce it to practice. In fine, we shall be told that, however absurd in its results may be the doctrine which we have been combating, it is still impossible to justify the punishment of an action which was ordered or authorized by the conscience of the man who committed it. How is this difficulty to be solved? How is this great obstacle to be removed? Is it lawful in any case to treat as culpable the man who is not so at the tribunal of his own conscience? Although this question seems entirely to turn upon some point on which men of all.opinions are agreed, there is nevertheless a wide difference in this respect between Catholics on one side and unbelievers and Protestants on the other. The first lay it down as an incontestable principle, that there are errors of the understanding which are faults; the others, on the contrary, think, that all errors of the understanding are innocent. The first consider error in regard to great moral and religious truths, as one of the gravest offences which man can commit against God; their opponents look upon errors of this kind with great indulgence, and they ought to do so in order to be consistent. Catholics admit the possibility of invincible ignorance with respect to some very important truths; but with them this possibility is limited to certain circumstances, out of which they declare man to be culpable: their opponents constantly extol liberty of thought, without any other restriction than that imposed by the taste of each one in particular; they constantly affirm that man is free to hold the opinions which he thinks proper; they have gone so far as to persuade their followers that there are no culpable errors or opinions, that man is not obliged to search into the secret recesses of his soul, to make sure that there are no secret causes which induce him to reject the truth; they have in the end monstrously confounded physical with moral liberty of thought; they have banished from opinions the ideas of lawful and unlawful, and have given men to understand that such ideas are not applicable to thought. That is to say, in the order of ideas, they have confounded right with fact, declaring, in this respect, the uselessness and incompetency of all laws, divine and human. Senseless men! as if it were possible for that which is most noble and elevated in human nature to be exempt from all rule; as if it were possible for the element which makes mnan the king of the creation, to be exempted from concurring in the ineffable harmony of all parts of the universe with themselves and with God; as if this harmony could exist, or even be conceived in man, unless it were declared to be the first of human obligations to adhere constantly to truth. This is one ot the profound reasons which justify the Catholic Church, when she considers the sin of heresy as one of the greatest that man can commit. You, who smile, with pity and contempt at these words, the sin of heresy; you, who consider this doctrine as the invention of priests to rule over consciences, by retrenching the liberty of thought; by what right do you claim the power of condemning heresies which are opposed to your orthodoxy? By what right do you condemn those societies that profess opinions hostile to property, public order, and the existence of authority? If the thought of man is free, if you cannot attempt to restrain it without violating sacred rights, if it is an absurdity and a contradiction to wish to oblige a man to act against his conscience, or disobey its dictates-why do you interfere with those men who desire to destroy PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 201 the existing state of society? Why baffle, why oppose those dark conspiracies, which, from time to time, send one of their members to assassinate a king? You invoke your convictions to declare unjust and cruel the intolerance which has been practised at certain times against your enemies; but you must remember that such societies and such men can also invoke their convictions. You say that the doctrines of the Church are human inventions; they say that the doctrines prevailing in society are also human inventions. You say that the ancient social order was a monopoly; they say the present social order is a monopoly. In your eyes, the ancient authorities were tyrannical; in theirs the present ones are so. You pretended to destroy what existed, in order to found new institutions conducive to the good of humanity; to-day these men hold the same language. You have proclaimed holy the war which was waged against ancient power; they proclaim holy the war against present power. When you availed yourselves of the means which offered themselves, you pretended that necessity rendered them legitimate; they declare to be not less legitimate the only means which they possess, that of combinations, of preparing for their opportunity, and of hastening it by assassinating great men. You have pretended to make all opinions respected, even atheism, and you have taught that nobody has a right to prevent your acting in conformity with your principles; but the fanatics in question have also their horrible principles and their dreadful convictions. Do you require a proof of this? See them amid the gayety of public celebrations, glide, pale and gloomy, among the joyful multitude, choose the fitting moment to cast desolation over a royal family, and cover a nation with mourning, while they accumulate on their own heads the public execration, certain, moreover, of finishing their lives on the scaffold. But our adversaries will say, such convictions are inexcusable. Yours are so also. All the difference is, that you have contrived your ambitious and fatal systenls amid ease and pleasure, perhaps in opulence, and under the shadow of power, while they have conceived their abominable doctrines in the bosom of obscurity, poverty, misery, and despair. Indeed, the inconsistency of some men is shocking to the last degree. Tr ridicule all religions, to decry the spirituality and immortality of the soul, and the existence of God, to overturn all morality, and sap its deepest foundations, all this they have considered excusable, and we may even say, worthy of praise; moreover, the writers who have undertaken this fatal task are worthy of apotheosis; men must expel the Divinity from his temples to place there the names and busts of the leaders of their schools; under the vaults of splendid basilicas, where repose the ashes of Christians awaiting the resurrection, they must raise the mausoleum of Voltaire and Rousseau, in order that future generations, when they descend into their dark and silent abodes, may receive the inspirations of their genius. But have they, then, a right to complain that property, and domestic life, and social order are attacked? Property is sacred; but is it more sacred than God? However great may be the importance of the truths relating to the family and to society, are they of a superior order to the eternal principles of morality, or rather, are they any thing more than the application of these principles? But let us resume the thread of our discourse. When the principle, that there are culpable errors, is once established (a principle which in practice, if not in theory, must be received by all men, but which Catholicity alone can logically -maintain in theory), it is easy to see the reason of the punishments which human power decrees against the propagation and teaching of certain doctrines; and we can understand why it is legitimate to punish, without considering the conviction that animated the culprit, the actions which are the result of his doctrines. The law shows that this mortal error has existed, or can existj but in this case it declares the error itself to be culpable; and if man adduces 26 202 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. the testimony of his own conscience, the law reminds him that it is his duty to rectify his conscience. Such is, in truth, the foundation of a legislation which has appeared so unjust; a foundation which it is necessary to point out, in order to vindicate a great many human laws from a deep disgrace; for it would be a great disgrace to claim the right of punishing a man who was really innocent. Such an absurd right is so far from belonging to human justice, that it does not belong even to God. The infinite justice of God would cease to be what it is, if it could punish the innocent. Perhaps another origin will be assigned for the right which governments possess, of-punishing the propagation of certain doctrines and the actions committed in consequence of them, when the criminal has acted from the deepest conviction. "Governments," it may be said, "act in the name of society, which, like every being, possesses the right of self-defence. There are certain doctrines which menace its existence; it has, therefore, of necessity and right, the power of resisting those who promulgate them." Such a reason, however plausible it may appear,'is liable to this grave objection, that it destroys at one blow the idea of punishment and justice. To wound an aggressor in self-defence is not to chastise but to resist him. If we consider society in this point of view, the criminal led to punishment will no longer be a real criminal, but the unfortunate victim of a rash and unequal struggle. The voice of the judge condemning him will no longer be the august voice of justice; his sentence will only be the act of society avenging the attack made upon it. The word punishment will then assume quite a different meaning; the gradations of it will depend entirely upon calculations, and not on justice. We must remember this; if we suppose that society, by virtue of the right of self-defence, inflicts a punishment upon the man whom it considers quite innocent, it no longer judges or condemns, but fights and struggles. That which is perfectly suitable with respect to the relations between one society and another, is in no way suitable to society in its relations with individuals. It then appears like a combat between a giant and a pigmy. The giant takes the pigmy in his hand, and crushes him against a stone. The doctrine which I have just explained evidently shows the value of the much vaunted principle of universal toleration; it has been demonstrated that that principle is as impracticable in fact as it is unsustainable in theory; consequently all the accusations made against the Catholic Church on the subject of intolerance are overturned. It has been clearly shown that intolerance is in some measure the right of all public power; this has always been acknowledged; it is acknowledged still, generally speaking, when philosophers, the partisans of tolerance, attain to power. No doubt, governments have a thousand times abused this principle; no.doubt, more than once the truth has been persecuted in virtue of it; but what do men not abuse? Their duty, then, as good philosophers, was not to establish principles that cannot be sustained, and are extremely dangerous; not to declaim to satiety against the times and institutions which have preceded us; but to endeavor to propagate sentiments of mildness and indulgence, and, above all, npt to impugn important truths, without which society cannot be sustained, and which cannot be destroyed without abandoning the world to the empire of force, and, consequently, to despotism and tyranny. Men have attacked dogmas; but they have not been willing to see that morality was intimately connected with dogmas, and that it was itself a dogma. By proclaiming unbounded liberty of thought, they have asserted the impeccability of the mind; error has ceased to figure among the faults of which men can be guilty. They have forgotten that, in order to -will, it was necessary to know; and that to will riliztly, it was necessary to know truly. If we examine the greater part of the errors of our hearts, we shall see that they have their source in a misunderstanding; is it possible, then, that it should not be the duty of PROTESTANTISMI COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 203 man to preserve his mind from error? But since it has been said that opinions are of little importance, that man is free to choose such as please him, even in matters of religion and morality, truth has lost its value; its intrinsic worth is no longer what it was in the eyes of man; and too many consider themselves exempt from attempting to attain it,-a deplorable condition of mind, which is one of the greatest evils afflicting society. (25) CHAPTER XXXVI. ON THE INQUISITION IN SPAIN. I FIND myself naturally led to make a few observations on the intolerance of certain Catholic princes, on the Inquisition, and in particular on that of Spain. I must make a rapid examination of the charges against Catholicity on account of its conduct during the last centuries. The dungeons, the burnings of the Inquisition, and the intolerance of some Catholic princes, have furnished the enemies of the Church with one of their most effective arguments in depreciating her, and rendering her the object of odium and hatred; and it must be allowed that they have, in attacks of this kind, many advantages, which give them good prospects of success. Indeed (as we have said above, for the generality of readers, who, without undertaking to examine. things to the bottom, naively allow themselves to be led away by a subtle writer; as we have said, for all those who have sensitive hearts, and are prompt to pity the unfortunate), what is more likely to excite indignation than the exhibition of dark dungeons, instruments of torture, san-benitos, and burnings? Imagine what effect must be produced, amid our toleration, our gentle manners, our humane penal codes, by the sudden exhibition of the severities, the cruelties of another age; the whole exaggerated and grouped into one picture, where are shown all the melancholy scenes which occurred in different places, and were spread over a long period of time. They take care to remind us that all this was done in the name of the God of peace and love; thereby the contrast is rendered more vivid, the imagination is excited, the heart becomes indignant; and the result is, that the clergy, magistrates, kings, and popes of those remote times, appear like a troop of executioners, whose pleasure consists in tormenting and desolating the human race. Writers, who have ventured to act in this way, have certainly not added to their reputation for delicacy of conscience. There is a rule which orators and writers ought never to forget, viz. that it is not allowable to excite the passions, until they have convinced the reason, unless it had been convinced before. Besides, there is a degree of bad faith in appealing to the feelings with respect to matters which ought to be examined by the light of reason alone, if they are to be examined properly. In such a case we ought not to begin by moving, but by convincing; to do otherwise is to deceive the reader. I am not going to write the history of the Inquisition, or of the different systems which various countries have adopted with respect to religious intolerance; this would be impossible within my narrow limits; besides, it would lead me away from the object of my work. Ought we to draw from the Inquisition in general, that of Spain in particular, or from the greater or less intolerance of the legislation of some countries, an accusation against Catholicity? Can it, in this respect, be put in comparison with Protestantism? Such are the questions I have to examine; Three things at first present themselves to the eyes of the observer: 1st, the legislation and institutions proceeding from the principle of intolerance;' d,the use which has been made of this legislation and these institutionug 3d, the intolerant acts which have been committed illegally. With ~04 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLIICITY. respect to the latter, I must say at once that they have nothing to do with the question. The Massacre of St. Bartholomew, and other atrocities committed in the name of religion, ought not to trouble the apologists of religion: to render her responsible for all that has been done in her name, would be to act with manifest injustice. Man is endowed with so strong and lively a sense of the excellence of virtue, that he endeavors to cover the greatest crimes with her mantle;-would it be reasonable to banish virtue from the earth on that account? There are, in the history of mankind, terrible periods, where a fatal giddiness seizes upon the mind; rage, inflamed by disorder, blinds the intellect and changes the heart; evil is called good, and good evil; the most horrible attempts are made under the most respectable names. Historians and philosophers, in treating of such periods, should know what ought to be their line of conduct; strictly accurate in the narration of such facts, they ought to beware of drawing from them a judgment as to the prevailing ideas and institutions. Society then resembles a man in a state of delirium; we should ill judge of the ideas, character, and conduct of such a man, from what he says and does in that deplorable condition. What party, in those calamitous times, can boast of not having committed great crimes? If we fix our: eyes on the period just mentioned, do we not see the leaders of both parties assassinated by treason? Admiral Coligny died by the hands of the assassins who began the massacre of St. Bartholomew; but the Duke of Guise had been also assassinated by Poltrot, before Orleans. Henry III. was assassinated by Jacques Clement; but this same Henry III. had treacherously murdered the other Duke of Guise in the corridors of his palace, and his brother, the Cardinal, in the tower of Moulins; this same Henry III. had taken part in the massacre of St. Bartholomew. We see atrocities committed by the Catholics; but did not their opponents also commit them? Let us throw a veil over these catastrophes, over these afflicting proofs of the misery and perversity of the human heart. The tribunal of the Inquisition, considered in itself, is only the application to a particular case of that doctrine of intolerance, which, to a greater or less degree, is that of every existing power. Thus, we have only to examine the character of that particular application, and see whether its enemies are correct in their charges against it.. In the first place, we must observe that those who extol antiquity, sadly falsify history, if they pretend that intolerance only appeared after the time when, according to them, the Church had degenerated from her primitive purity. As for myself, I see that from the earliest times, when the Church began to exert political influence, heresy began to figure in the codes as a crime; and I have never been able to discover a period of complete tolerance. I must here make an important remark, which shows one of the causes of the rigor displayed in later centuries. The Inquisition was first directed against the Manichean heretics; that is, against the sectaries who at all times were treated with the greatest severity. In the 11th century, when the punishment of fire had not yet been applied to the crime of heresy, the Manicheans were excepted from this rule. Even in the time of the Pagan emperors, these sectaries were.treated with extreme rigor. In the year 296, we see Diocletian and Maximilian, by an edict, condemning to different punishments the Manicheans who had not abjured their dogmas, and consigning their leaders to the fire. These sectaries have always been considered as great criminals; and to punish them has always been judged necessary, not only for the interests of religion, but even for the morals and good order of society. This was.one of the causes of the rigor of the Inquisition at its commencement: if we add to this, the turbulent character of the sects which, under various names, arose in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries, we shall have two of the causes that contributed to produce those scenes which now we can scarcely credit. In studying the history of those enaturies, and fixing our attention on the troubles and disasters which ravaged PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. ~05 the south of France, we clearly see that it was not a dispute as to a particular dogma, but that the whole social system was compromised. The sectaries of those times were precursors of those of the 16th century; with this difference, that the latter, if we except the frantic Anabaptists, were less democratic, less apt to address the multitude. Amid the cruelties of those times, when long ages of violence and revolution had given an excessive preponderance to brute force, what could be expected from governments incessantly menaced with such imminent danger? It is clear that the laws, and their application, must savour of the times. As to the Spanish Inquisition, which was only an extension of that which was established in other countries, we must divide it, with respect to its duration, into, three great periods;-we omit the time of its existence in the kingdom of Aragon, before its introduction into Castille. The'first of these comprehends vhe time when the Inquisition was principally directed against the relapsed Jews and Moors, from the day of its installation under the Catholic sovereigns, till the middle of the reign of Charles V. The second extends from the time when it began to concentrate its efforts to prevent the introduction of Protestantism into Spain, until that danger entirely ceased; that-is, from the middle of the reign of Charles V. till the coming of the Bourbons. The third and last period is that when the Inquisition was limited to repress infamous crimes, and exclude the philosophy of Voltaire; this period was continued until its abolition in the beginning of the present century. It is clear that, the institution being successively modified according to circumstances at these different epochs, — although it always remained fundamentally the same,-the commencement and termination of each of these three periods which we have pointed out cannot be precisely marked; nevertheless, these three periods really existed in its history, and present us with very different characters. Every one knows the peculiar circumstances in which the Inquisition was established in the time of the Catholic sovereigns; yet it is worthy of remark, that the Bull of establishment was solicited by Queen Isabella; that is, by one of the most distinguished sovereigns in our history,-by that queen who stiH, after three centuries, preserves the respect and admiration of all Spaniards. Isabella, far from opposing the will of the people in this measure, only realized the national wish., The Inquisition was established chiefly against the Jews; the Papal Bull had been sent, in 1478; now, before the Inquisition published its first edict, dated Seville, in 1481, the Cortes of Toledo, in 1480, had adopted severe measures on the subject. To prevent the injury which the intercourse between Jews and Christians might occasion to the Catholic faith, the Cortes had ordered that unbaptized Israelites should be obliged to wear a distinctive mark, dwell in separate quarters, called Juiveries, and return there before night. Ancient regulations, against them were renewed; the professions of doctor, surgeon, shopkeeper, barber, and tavern-keeper, were forbidden them. Intolerance was, therefore, popular at that time. If the Inquisition be justified in the eyes of friends to monarchy, by conformity with the will of kings, it has an equal claim to be so in the; eyes of lovers of democracy. No doubt the heart is grieved at reading the excessive severities exercised at that time against the Jews; but must there not have been very grave causes to provoke such excesses? The danger which the Spanish monarchy, not yet well established, would have incurred if the Jews, then very.powerful on account of their riches and their alliances with the most influential families, had been allowed to act without restraint, has been pointed out as one of the most important of these causes. It was greatly to be feared that they would league with the Moors against the Christians. The.respective positions of the three nations rendered this league natural: this is the reason why it was looked upon as necessary to break a power which was capable of compromising anew the inde, S 2036 A4OTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. pendcnce of the Christians. It is necessary also to observe, that at the time when the Inquisition was established, the war of eight hundred years against the Moors was not yet finished. The Inquisition was projected before 1474; it was established in 1480, and the conquest of Granada did not take place till 1492. Thus it was founded at the time when the obstinate struggle was about to be decided; it was yet to be known whether the Christians would remain masters of the whole peninsula, or whether the Moors should retain possession of one of the most fertile and beautiful provinces; whether these enemies, shut up in Granada, should preserve a position, excellent for their communication with Africa, and a means for all the attempts which, at a later period, the Crescent might be disposed to make against us. Now, the power of the Crescent was very great, as was clearly shown by its enterprises against the rest of Europe in the next century. In such emergencies, after ages of fighting, and at the moment which was to decide the victory for ever, have combatants ever been known to conduct themselves with moderation and mildness? It cannot be denied that the system of repression pursued in Spain, with respect to the Jews and the Moors, was inspired, in great measure, by the instinct of self-preservation: we can easily believe that the Catholic princes had this motive before them when they decided on asking for the establishment of the Inquisition in their dominions. The danger was not imaginary: it was perfectly real. In order to form an idea of the turn which things might have taken if some precaution had not been adopted, it is enough to recollect the insurrections of the last Moors in later times. Yet it would be wrong, in this affair, to attribute all to the policy of royalty; and it is necessary here to avoid exalting too much the foresight and designs of men; for my part, I am inclined to think that Ferdinand and Isabella naturally followed the generality of the nation, in whose eyes the Jews were odious when they persevered in their creed, and suspected when they embraced the Christian religion. Two causes contributed to this hatred and animadversion. First, the excited state of religious feeling then general in all Europe, and especially in Spain; 2d, the conduct by which the Jews had drawn upon themselves the public indignation. The necessity of restraining the cupidity of the Jews, for the sake of the independence of the Christians, was of ancient date in Spain: the old assemblies of Toledo had attempted it. In the following centuries the evil reached its height; a great part of the riches of the peninsula had passed into the hands of the Jews, and almost all the Christians found themselves their debtors. Thence the hatred of the people against the Jews; thence the frequent troubles which agitated some towns of the peninsula; thence the tumults which more than once were fatal to the Jews, and in which their blood flowed in abundance. It was difficult for a people accustomed for ages to set themselves free by force of arms, to resign themselves peacefully and tranquilly to the lot prepared for them by the artifices and exactions of a strange race, whose name, moreover, bore the recollection of a terrible malediction. In later times, an immense number of Jews were converted to the Christian religion; but the hatred of the people was not extinguished thereby, and mistrust followed these converts into their new state. It is very probable that a great number of these conversions were hardly sincere, as they were partly caused by the sad position in which the Jews who continued in Judaism were placed. In default of conjectures founded on reason in this respect, we will regard as a sufficient corroboration of our opinion, the multitude of Judaizing Christians who were discovered as soon as care was taken to find out those who had been guilty of apostacy. However this may be, it is certain that the distinction between new and old Christians was introduced; the latter denomination was a title of honor, and the former a mark of ignominy; the converted Jews were contemptu PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITII CATIIOLIOITY. 207 ously called marrano.,-impure men, pigs. With more or less foundation, they were accused of horrible crimes. In their dark assemblies they committed, it was said, atrocities which could hardly be believed, for the honor of humanity. For example, it was said that, to revenge themselves on the Christians and in contempt of religion, they crucified Christian children, taking care to choose for the purpose the greatest day among Christian solemnities. There is the oftenrepeated history of the knight of the house of Guzman, who, being hidden one night in the house of a Jew whose daughter he loved, saw a child crucified at the time when the Christians celebrated the institution of the sacrifice of the Eucharist. Besides infanticide, there were attributed to the Jews, sacrileges, poisonings, conspiracies, and other crimes. That these rumors were generally believed by the people is proved by the fact, that the Jews were forbidden by law to exercise the professions of doctor, surgeon, barber, and tavern-keeper; this shows what degree of confidence was placed in their morality. It is useless to stay to examine the foundations for these sinister accusations. We are not ignorant how far popular credulity will go, above all when it is under the influence of excited feelings, which makes it view all things in the same light. It is enough for us to know that these rumors circulated everywhere and with credit, to understand what must have been the public indignation against the Jews, and consequently how natural it was that authority, yielding to the impulse of the general mind,, should be urged to treat them with excessive rigor. The situation in which the Jews were placed is sufficient to show, that they might have attempted to act in concert to resist the Christians; what they did after the death of St. Peter Arbues shows what they were capable of doing on other occasions. The funds necessary for the accomplishment of the murder, the pay of the assassins, and the other expenses required for the plot, were collected by means of voluntary contributions imposed on themselves by all the Jews of Aragon. Does not this show an advanced state of organization, which might have become fatal if it had not been watched. In alluding to the death of St. Peter Arbues, I wish to make an observation on what has been said on this subject, as proving the unpopularity of the establishment of the Inquisition in Spain. What more evident proof, we shall be told, can you have than the assassination of the Inquisitor? Is it not a sure sign that the indignation of the people was at its height, and that they were quite opposed to the Inquisition? Would they otherwise have been hurried into such excesses? If by'the people' you mean the Jews and their descendants, I will not deny that the establishment of the Inquisition was indeed very odious to them; but it was not so with the rest of the nation. The event we are speaking of gave rise to a circumstance which proves just the reverse. When the report of the death of the Inquisitor was spread through the town, the people made a fearful tumult to avenge his death. They spread through the town, they went in crowds in pursuit of the new (Christians, so that a bloody catastrophe would have ensued, had not the young Archbishop of Saragossa, Alphonsus of Aragon, presented himself to the people on horseback, and calmed them by the assurance that all the rigor of the laws should fall on the heads of the guilty. Was the Inquisition as unpopular as it has been represented; and will it be said that its adversaries were the majority of the people? Why, then, could not the tumult at Saragossa have been avoided in spite of all the precautions which were no doubt taken by the conspirators, at that time very powerful by their riches and influence? At the time of the greatest rigor against the Judaizing Christians, there is a fact worthy of attention. Persons accused, or threatened with the pursuit of the Inquisition, took every means to escape the action of that tribunal: they left the soil of Spain and went to Rome. Would those who imagine that Rome has always been the hotbed of intolerance, the firebrand of persecution, have imagined this? The number of causes commenced by the Inquisition, and summoned 208 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. from Spain to Rome, is countless, during the first fifty years of the existence of.that tribunal; and it must be added, that Rome always inclined to the side of indulgence. I do not know that it would be possible to cite one accused person who, by appealing to Rome, did not ameliorate his condition. The history of the Inquisition at that time is full of contests between the Kings and Popes; and we constantly find, on the part of the Holy See, a desire to restrain the Inquisition within the bounds of justice and humanity.. The line of conduct prescribed by the court of Rome was not always followed as it ought to have been; thus we see the Popes compelled to receive a multitude of appeals, and mitigate the lot that would have befallen the appellants, if their cause had been definitely decided in Spain. We also see the Pope name the judge of appeal, at the solicitation of the Catholic sovereigns, who desired that causes should be finally decided in Spain: the first of these judges was Dr. Inigo Manrique, Archbishop of Seville. Nevertheless, at the end of a short time, the same Pope, in a Bull of the 2d of August, 1483, said that he had received new appeals, made by a great number of the Spaniards of Seville, who had not dared to address themselves to the judge of appeal for fear of being arrested. Such was then the excitement of the public mind; such was, at that time, the necessity of preventing injustice, or measures of undue severity. The Pope added, that some of those who had had recourse to his justice had already received the absolution of the Apostolical Penitentiary, and that others were about to receive it; he afterwards complained that indulgences granted to divers accused persons had not been sufficiently respected at Seville; in fine, after several other admonitions, he observed to Ferdinand and Isabella, that mercy towards the guilty was more pleasing to God than the severity which it was desired to use; and he gave the example of the good Shepherd following the wandering sheep. He ended by exhorting the sovereigns to treat with mildness those who voluntarily confessed their faults, desiring them to allow them to reside at Seville, or in some other place they might choose; and to allow them the enjoyment of their property, as if they had not been guilty of the crime of heresy. Moreover, it is not to be supposed that the appeals admitted at Rome, and by virtue of which the lot of the' accused was improved, were founded on errors of fqrm and injustice committed in the application of the law. If the accused had recourse to Rome, it was not always to demand reparation for an injustice, but because they were sure of finding indulgence. We have a proof of this in the considerable number of Spanish refugees convicted at Rome of having fallen into Judaism. Two hundred and fifty of them were found at one time; yet there was not one capital execution. Some penances were imposed on them, and when they were absolved, they were free to return home, without the least mark of ignominy. This took place at Rome in 1498. It is a remarkable thing that the Roman Inquisition was never known to pronounce the execution of capital punishment, although the Apostolic See was occupied during that time by Popes of extreme rigor and severity in all that relates to the civil administration. We find in all parts of Europe scaffolds prepared to punish crimes against religion; scenes which sadden the soul were everywhere witnessed. Rome is an exception to the rule; Rome, which it has been attempted to represent as a monster of intolerance and cruelty. It is true, that the Popes have not preached, like Protestants, universal toleration; but facts show the difference between the Popes and Protestants. The Popes, armed with a tribunal of intolerance, have not spilled a drop of blood; Protestants and philosophers have shed torrents. What advantage is it to the victim to hear his executioners proclaim toleration? It is adding the bitterness of sarcasm to his punishment. The conduct of Rome in the use which she made of the Inquisition, is the best apology of Catholicity against those who attempt to stigmatize her as barbarous and sanguinary. In truth, what is there in com PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 209 mon between Catholicity and the excessive severity employed in this place or that, in the extraordinary situation in which many rival races were placed, in the presence of danger which menaced one of them, or in the interest which the kings had in maintaining the tranquillity of their states, and securing their conquests from all danger? I will not enter into a detailed examination of the conduct of the Spanish Inquisition with respect to Judaizing Christians; and I am far from thinking that the rigor which it employed against them was preferable to the mildness recommended and displayed by the Popes. What I wish to show here is, that rigor was the result of extraordinary circumstances,-the effect of the national spirit, and of the severity of customs in Europe at that time. Catholicity cannot'be reproached with excesses committed for these different reasons. Still more, if we pay attention to the spirit which prevails in all the instructions of the Popes relating to the Inquisition; if we observe their manifest inclination to range themselves on the side of mildness, and to suppress the marks of ignominy with which the guilty, as well as their families, were stigmatized, we have a right to suppose that, if the Popes had not feared to displease the kings too much, and to excite divisions which might have been fatal, their measures would have been carried still further. If we recollect the negotiations which took place with respect to the noisy affair of the claims of the Cortes of Aragon, we shall see to which side the court of Rome leaned. As we are speaking of intolerance with regard to the Judaizers, let us say a few words as to the disposition of Luther towards the Jews. Does it not seem that the pretended reformer, the founder of independence of thought, the furious declaimer against the oppression and tyranny of the Popes, should have been animated with the most humane sentiments towards that people? No doubt the eulogists of this chieftain of Protestantism ought to think thus also. I am sorry for them; but history will not allow us to partake of this delusion. According to all appearances, if the apostate monk had found himself in the place of Torquemada, the Judaizers would not have been in a better position. What, then, was the system advised by Luther, according to Seckendorf, one of his apologists? "Their synagogues ought to be destroyed, their houses pulled down, their prayer-books, the Talmud, and even the books of the Old Testament, to be taken from them; their rabbis ought to be forbidden to teach, and be compelled to gain their livelihood by hard labor." The Inquisition, at least, did not proceed against the Jews, but against the Judaizers; that is, against those who, after being converted to Christianity, relapsed into their errors, and added sacrilege to their apostacy, by the external profession of a creed which they detested in secret, and which they profaned by the exercise of their old religion. But Luther extended his severity to the Jews themselves; so that, according to his doctrines, no reproach can be made against the sovereign who expelled the Jews from their dominions. The Moors and the Mooriscoes no less occupied the attention of the Inquisition at that time; and all that has been said on the subject of the Jews may be applied to them with some modifications. They were also an abhorred race -a race which had been contended with for eight centuries. When they retained their religion, the Moors inspired hatred; when they abjured it, mistrust; the Popes interested themselves in their favor also in a peculiar manner. We ought to remark a Bull issued in 1530, which is expressed in language quite evangelical: it is there said, that the ignorance of these nations is one of the principal causes of their faults and errors; the first thing to be done to render their conversion solid and sincere was, according to the recommendation contained in this Bull, to endeavor to enlighten their minds with sound doctrine. It will be said that the Pope granted to Charles V. the Bull which released him from the oath taken in the Cortes of Saragossa in the year 1519; an oath, 27 s2 210 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. by which he had engaged not to make any change with respect to the Moors; whereby, it is said, the Emperor was enabled to complete their expulsion. But, we must observe, that the Pope for a long time resisted that concession; and, that if he at length complied with the wishes of the Emperor, it was only because he thought that the expulsion of the Moors was indispensable to secure the tranquillity of the kingdom. Whether this was true or not, the Emperor, and not the Pope, was the better judge; the latter, placed at a great distance, could not know the real state of things in detail. Moreover, it was not the Spanish monarch alone who thought so; it is related that Francis I., when a prisoner at Madrid, one day conversing with Charles V., told him that tranquillity would never be established in Spain, if the Moors and Mooriscoes were not expelled. CHAPTER XXVII. SECOND EPOCH OF THE INQUISITION IN SPAIN. IT has been said that Philip II. founded a new Inquisition in Spain, more terrible than that of the Catholic sovereigns; at the same time the Inquisition of Ferdinand and Isabella receives a certain degree of indulgence, which is refused to that of their successors. At the very outset, we find an important historical mistake in this assertion. Philip did not establish a new Inquisition; he maintained that which the Catholic sovereigns had left him, and which Charles V., his father and predecessor, had particularly recommended to him by will. The Committee of the Cortes of Cadiz, in the project for the abolition of the tribunal of the Inquisition, excuses the conduct of the Catholic sovereigns, and blames with severity that of Philip II.; it attempts to make all the fault and odium fall on that prince. An illustrious French writer, very recently treating of this important question, has allowed himself to be led into the same errors, with that candor which sometimes accompanies genius. "There were," says M. Lacordaire, "in the Spanish Inquisition, two solemn periods, which must not be confounded; the one at the end of the fifteenth century, under Ferdinand and Isabella, before the Moors were expelled from Granada, their last asylum; the other, in the middle of the sixteenth, under Philip II., when Protestantism threatened to propagate itself in Spain. The Committee of the Cortes has perfectly distinguished these two epochs; and while it stigmatizes the Inquisition of Philip II., expresses itself with moderation with respect to that of Ferdinand and Isabella." After these words the writer quotes a text, where it is affirmed that Philip II. was the real founder of the Inquisition; if that institution attained in the end to a high degree of power, it was owing, it says, to the refined policy of that prince. We read, a little further on, that Philip II. was the inventor of the auto-da-f4, to terrify heretics; and that the first of these bloody spectacles was seen at Seville in 1559. (Memonire pour le rdtablissement de' Ordre des Frares Precheurs, chap. vi.) Setting aside the historical mistake with respect to the auto-da:fes, it is well known that neither the sanbenitos nor the fagots were the invention of Philip II. Such mistakes easily escape a writer who is satisfied with alluding to a fact incidentally; if we bring forward this one, it is because it contains an accusation against a monarch to whom, for a long time, too little justice has been done. Philip II. continued the work which had been begun by his predecessors; if they are excused, he ought not to be treated with greater severity. Ferdinand and Isabella directed the Inquisition against the apostate Jews; why could not Philip II. avail himself of it against Protestants? But I shall be told he abused his right and carried rigor to excess. Certainly there was not more PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 211 indulgence in the times of Ferdinand and Isabella.. Are the numerous executions at Seville and other places forgotten? Or what Mariana says in his history, and.the public measures taken by the Popes for the purpose of checking the excessive severity? The words quoted against Philip II. are taken from the work called La Inquicitidn sin mascura (the Inquisition unveiled,) published in Spain in 1811. We may judge of the value of this authority, when we know that the author of the book was distinguished till his death by a deep hatred to the Spanish kings. The book bears the name of Nathanael Jomtob; but the real author is a well-known Spaniard, who, in his latter writings, seems to have undertaken to avenge, by his unbounded exaggerations and furious invectives, all that he had previously attacked; a writer who assails, with an intolerable partiality, all that presents itself before him-religion, country, classes of society, individuals, and opinions-insulting and tearing to pieces all, as if he had been seized with a sally of passion, and not even sparing the men of his own party. Is it, then, surprising that this writer regarded Philip II. as Protestants and philosophers do, that is, as a monarch placed on the earth for the disgrace and misfortune of humanity,-a monster of 3Iachiavellianism, anxious to diffuse darkness, in order to maintain himself in safety in his cruelty and perfidy? I will not undertake to justify, on all points, the policy of Philip II.; I will not deny that there are exaggerations in the eulogiums which some Spanish writers have given to that prince. But, on the other hand, it cannot be doubted, that Protestants and the political enemies of Philip II. have ever been careful to denounce him. And do you know why Protestants have done this? It is because it was he who prevented Protestantism from penetrating into Spain; it was he who, at that period of agitation, maintained the cause of Catholicity. Let us set aside the great events of the rest of Europe, of which each one will judge as he pleases; let us limit ourselves to Spain. We do not fear to assert, that the introduction of Protestantism into that country was imminent and inevitable without the system which he pursued. Whether Philip used the Inquisition for political purposes, in certain cases, is not the question we have to examine here; but at least it must be acknowledged that it was not a mere instrument of ambitious projects; it was an institution strengthened and maintained in presence of an imminent danger. It appears, from the proceedings of the Inquisition at this time, that Protestantism began to spread in an incredible manner.in Spain; eminent ecclesiastics, monks, nuns, seculars of distinction, in a word, individuals of the most influential classes, were attached to the new errors. Could the efforts of Protestants to introduce their creed into Spain remain altogether unproductive, when they employed every stratagem in their ardor to introduce their books? They went so far as to place their prohibited writings in casks of Champagne and Burgundy wine, with so much art as to deceive the custom-house men: thus wrote the Spanish Ambassador at Paris. To perceive the whole danger, it is enough to observe with attention the state of minds in Spain at this time; besides, incontestable facts come in support of conjectures. The Protestants, taking great care to declaim against abuses, represented themselves as reformers, and labored to draw to their side all who were animated by an ardent desire for reform. This desire for reform had existed for a long time in the Church; but with some it was inspired by bad intentions; in other words, the specious name of reform concealed the real intention of many, which was to destroy. At the same time, with some sincere Catholics, this desire, although pure in principle, went to imprudent zeal, and reached an ill-regulated ardor. It is probable that such zeal, carried to too great an extent, was, with many, changed into acrimony; thence a certain facility in receiving the insidious suggestions of the enemies of the Church. Many people who had 212 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY begun with indiscreet zeal, perhaps fell into exaggeration, then into bitterness, and finally into heresy. Spain was not exempt from this disposition of mind, from whence the course of events might have drawn very bitter results, if Pro. testantism had obtained any footing on our soil. We know that the Spaniards at the Council of Trent distinguished themselves by their reforming zeal, and their boldness in expressing their opinions. Let us remark, moreover, that religious discord being once introduced into a country; minds are excited by disputes, they are irritated by frequent shocks, and it sometimes happens that respectable men precipitate themselves into excesses which they would have abhorred a short time before. It is difficult to say with precision what would have happened if the rigor had been at all relaxed on this point. Certain it is, that, when reading some passages of Luis Vives, of Arias Montanus, of Carranza, and of the consultation of Melchior Cano, we can fancy we find, at the bottom of their minds, a sort of disquietude and agitation, which may best be compared to those heavy murmurings which announce from afar the commencement of a tempest. The famous trial of the Archbishop of Toledo, Fray Bartolome de Carranza, is one of the facts which are most frequently cited to show the arbitrary nature of the proceedings of the Spanish Inquisition. We certainly cannot see without emotion, shut up in prison for many years, one of the most learned men in Europe, the Archbishop of Toledo, honored with the intimate confidence of Philip II. and the Queen of England, allied in friendship with the most distinguished men of the time, and known to all Christendom by the brilliant part which he had played at the Council of Trent. The process lasted seventeen years; and although the cause was carried to Rome, where the Archbishop must have found powerful friends, a declaration of innocence in his favor could not be obtained. Without staying to notice the many incidents of a cause so loftg and so complicated, without insisting on the more or less reason which the discourses and writings of Carranza may have afforded for suspicions against his faith, I am quite certain, in my own mind, that, in his own conscience and before God, he was perfectly innocent. Here is a proof that places my opinion beyond a doubt. A short time after the judgment was given, he fell ill; his malady was supposed to be mortal, and the sacraments were administered to him. At the moment of receiving the Viaticum, in the presence of a large concourse, he declared, in the most solemn manner, that he had never left the Catholic faith, that his conscience acquitted him of all the accusations made against him; and he confirmed his declaration by calling to witness God, in whose presence he was, whom he was about to receive under the most sacred species, and before whose awful tribunal he was in a few moments to appear This pathetic act drew tears from all present; all suspicions against him were dissipated as by a breath, and a new sympathy was added to that which his continued misfortunes had excited. The Sovereign Pontiff did not doubt the sincerity of the dclaration, as a magnificent epitaph was placed upon his tomb, which certainly would not have been allowed if there had been the least doubt of it. It certainly would be rash to refuse to believe a declaration so explicit from the mouth of such a man as Carranza, expiring, and in the presence of Jesus Christ Himself. After having paid this tribute to the knowledge, virtues, and misfortunes of Carranza, it remains for us to examine whether, whatever may have been the purity of his conscience, it can be justly said that his trial was a perfidious intrigue, carried on by envy and hatred. This is not the place to examine the immense procedure in this case; but since allusion. has been made to it to condemn Philip II. and the adversaries of Carranza, I wish, in my turn, to make some observations, to endeavor to place the affair in its proper light. In the first place, is it not astonishing that a trial devoid of all foundation should have PROTESTANTISM COMIPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 213 had so extraordinary a duration? At least there must have been some appearance of it. Besides, if the cause had been decided in Spain, the length of the trial might not have been so extraordinary. But it was not so; the cause remained pending in Rome many years. Were the judges so blind or so wicked that they could not discover the calumny, or that they wanted the virtue to destroy it, supposing it to have been as clear and evident as it has been pretended? It may be replied to this, that the intrigues of Philip II., who was determined on the destruction of the Archbishop, prevented the truth from appearing; in proof of this assertion, have we not the difficulties which the king made to allow the prisoner to be transferred to Rome? It was necessary, it is said, for Pius V. to effect this by the threat of excommunication. I will not deny that Philip II. attempted to aggravate the situation of the Archbishop, and wished for a sentence little favorable to the illustrious accused. Yet, before deciding that the conduct of the king was criminal, we must know whether he acted thus from personal resentment, from conviction, or from the suspicion that the Archbishop inclined towards Lutheranism. Carianza, before his disgrace, was highly favored and esteemed by Philip, as appears from the missions which were confided to him in England, and from his elevation to the first ecclesiastical dignity in Spain. How, then, can we presume that so much good-will was converted on a sudden into personal and violent hatred? Is it not, at least, necessary that history should afford a fact in support of this conjecture? Now, I find this nowhere in history, nor am I aware that others have done so. If Philip took so decided a part against the Archbishop, it was evidently because he believed, or strongly suspected him of being heretical. In that case, Philip may have been rash, imprudent-all that you please; but it cannot be said that, in the pursuit, he was moved by the spirit of vengeance, or by low animosity. Other men of the time were equally accused. Among the rest, Melchior Cano. Carranza himself seemed to be suspicious; he bitterly complained that Melchior Cano had ventured to say that -the Archbishop was as heretical as Luther. But Salazar de Mendoza, when relating the fact in the life of Carranza, asserts that Cano, hearing this, openly denied it, saying, that he had said nothing of the kind. Indeed, the mind is easily inclined to believe him; men with intellects as favored as his, have, in their own dignity, too powerful a preservative against baseness, to allow them to be suspected of playing the infamous part of calumniators. I do not believe that it is necessary to seek for the cause of the misfortunes of Carranza in private hatred or jealousy; it is found in the critical circumstances of the time, and in the character of this illustrious man himself. The grave symptoms which produced alarm lest Protestantism might make proselytes in Spain; the efforts of the Protestants to introduce their books and emissaries there; the experience of what happened in other countries, and particularly in the kingdom of France, created so much dread in men's minds, rendered them so fearful and mistrustful, that the least suspicion of error, above all, in persons elevated in dignity or distinguished for their knowledge, occasioned disquietude and apprehension. We are aware of the hot disputes which took place with respect to the Polyglot of Antwerp and Arias Montanus, and we are not ignorant of the sufferings of the famous Fray Luis de Leon, and some other illustrious men of that time. Another conjuncture which contributed to push things to extremes was, the political situation of Spain with respect to strangers. The Spanish monarchy had too many enemies and rivals for her not to have reason to fear that heresy, in the hands of her adversaries, would become a means of introducing discord and civil war into her bosom. These causes united, naturally rendered Philip suspicious and mistrustful; the hatred of heresy com-.bining in his mind with the desire of self-preservation, he showed himself severs 214 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. and inexorable with respect to all that could affect the purity of the Catholic faith in his empire. On the other hand, it must be acknowledged that the character of Carranza was not exactly what was required, in such critical times, to avoid all dangerous wanderings. We perceive, in reading his commentaries on the Catechism, that he was a man of acute penetration, of vast erudition, of profound learning, of severe character, and of a heart generous and frank. He spoke his thoughts without circumlocution, without regard to the displeasure which his words might give to this person or that. When he believed that he had discovered an abuse, he pointed it out and condemned it openly, wherein he resembled his supposed adversary, Melchior Cano, in more features than one. The accusations against him in the trial were founded, not only oh his writings, but also on some of his sermons and private conversations. I know not to what extent he exceeded the just limits; but I hesitate not to affirm, that a man who wrote in the tone which we find in his works, must have expressed himself viva voce with great force, and perhaps with excessive boldness. It must be added, to speak the whole truth, that when treating of justification, in his commentaries on the Catechism, he does not explain himself with all the clearness, desirable, and is wanting in the simplicity required by the unhappy circumstances of the times. Men versed in this delicate matter know how delicate certain points are. These points were then the subject of the errors of Germany; and it maybe easily imagined how much the attention must have been fixed on the words of Carranza, and how alarming the least shadow of ambiguity must have been. It is certain that, at Rome he was not acquitted of all the accusations; he was compelled to abjure a series of propositions, with respect to which he was judged liable to suspicion; and some penances were imposed on him. Carranza on his death-bed protested his innocence; but he took care to declare that hedid not regard the sentence of the Pope as unjust. The explanation of the enigma is this: the innocence of the heart is not always accompanied by the prudence of the lips. I have dwelt upon this famous cause because it involves considerations which strikingly exhibit the spirit of the age. These considerations have, besides, the advantage of showing the truth in its proper light, and prevent every thing being explained according to the wretched measure of the malice of men. There is unhappily a tendency to explain all in this way; and it may be truly said, that men too often give a just foundation for it; yet, whenever there is no evident necessity to do so, we ought to abstain from condemnation. The picture of the history of humanity is sombre enough in itself; let us not take pleasure in darkening it still more by new stains. We often call crime that which was only ignorance. Man is inclined to evil; but he is not less subject to error, and error is not always culpable. Moreover, I believe that to Protestants themselves were owing the rigor and anxious mistrust which the Inquisition of Spain displayed at that time. They excited a religious revolution; and it is a constant law, that all revolutions either destroy the power assailed, or render it more harsh and severe. What before was looked upon as indifferent, is now considered as suspected; and what, in all other circumstances, would only have appeared a fault, is now regarded as a crime. Men are in continual dread of seeing liberty converted into licentiousness; and as revolutions destroy all, while they profess to reform, whoever ventures to speak of reform, runs the risk of being blamed as a disturber.'Even prudent conduct is stigmatized as hypocritical caution; frank and sincere language is termed insolence and dangerous suggestion; reserve is a concealment full of cunning; even silence itself assumes a meaning-it becomes alarming dissimulation. We have seen so many things come to pass in our days, that we are placed in an incomparable situation easily to understand the various phases of the history of humanity. It is an undoubted fact, that Protestantism pro PROTESTANTISMI COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 215 duced a reaction in Spain. Its errors and excesses were the reason why tz ecclesiastical and civil power infinitely restrained the liberty which had beeU previously enjoyed in all that related to'religion. Spain was preserved from the Protestant doctrines, when all the probabilities were in favor of their being introduced there, in one way or another. It is clear that this could not be obtained without extraordinary efforts. Spain, at that time, appears to me like a place besieged by a powerful enemy, where the leaders continually watched, not only against attacks from without, but also against treason from within. I will confirm these observations by an example, which will serve for many others. Let us remember what took place with respect to Bibles in the vulgar tongue; we shall then have an idea of what passed with relation to all the rest, according to the natural order of things. I have before me a testimony of what I have just said, as respectable as it is worthy of interest-that of Carranza himself. Hear what he says in his prologue to his commentaries on the Christian Catechism: "Before the heresies of Luther had come from the infernal regions to the light of this world, I do not know that the Holy Scriptures in the vulgar tongue were anywhere forbidden. In Spain, Bibles were translated into it by order of the Catholic sovereigns, at the time when the Moors and Jews were allowed to live among the Christians according to their own law. After the expulsion of the Jews from Spain, the judges of religion found that some of those who had been converted to our holy faith instructed their children in Judaism, and taught them the ceremonies of the law of Moses by means of those Bibles in the vulgar tongue, which they took care to have printed in Italy, in the town of Ferrara. This is the real cause why Bibles in the vulgar tongue were forbidden in Spain; but the possession and reading of them were always allowed to colleges and monasteries, as well as to persons of distinction above all suspicion." Carranza continues to give, in a few words, the history of these prohibitions in Germany, France, and other countries; then he adds: "In Spain, which was, and still is, by the grace and goodness of God, pure from the cockle, care was taken to forbid generally all the translations of the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue, in order to prevent strangers having an opportunity of holding controversy with simple and ignorant persons, and also because they had, and still have, experience of certain particular cases, and of the errors which began to arise in Spain from the ill-understood reading of certain passages of the Bible. What I have just stated is the real history of what took place; this is why the Bible in the vulgar tongue was prohibited." This curious passage of Carranza shows us, in a few words, the progress of things. At first there was no prohibition; but the abuse committed by the Jews provoked.one, although still confined, as we have just seen, within certain limits. Afterwards came the Protestants, upsetting all Europe by means of their Bibles; Spain is threatened with the introduction of the new errors; it is discovered that some persons have been misled by the false interpretation of certain passages of the Bible; they are compelled to take away this weapon from these strangers, who attempt to use it to seduce simple people: from that time the prohibition becomes rigorous and general. To return to Philip II., let us not forget that this monarch was one of the firmest defenders of the Catholic Church; and that in him was personified the policy of the faithful ages, amid the vertigo which, under the impulse of Protestaltism, had taken possession of European policy. If the Catholic Church, awird these great perturbations, could reckon on a powerful protection from the princes of the earth, it was in great measure owing to Philip II. This age was critical and decisive in Europe. If it is true that he was unfortunate in Flanders, it is not less undoubted that his power and ability afforded a counterpoise to the Protestant power, which prevented it making itself master of Europe. Even supposing that the efforts of Philip had only the result of gaining 216 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. time, by breaking the first shock of the Protestant policy, this was not a slight service rendered to the Catholic Church, then attacked on so many sides. What would have happened to Europe, if Protestantism had been introduced into Spain as into France? if the Huguenots had been able to count on the assistance of the Peninsula? And what would have happened in Italy, if she had not been held in respect by the power of Philip? Would not the sectaries of Germany have succeeded in introducing their errors there? Here I appeal to all men who are acquainted with history, whether, if Philip had abandoned his much-decried policy, the Catholic religion would not have run the risk of finding itself, at the beginning of the seventeenth century, under the hard necessity of existing only as a tolerated religion in the generality of the kingdoms of Europe? Now, we know what this toleration is worth to the Catholic Church; England has told us for centuries; Prussia shows us at this moment, and Russia adds her testimony in a manner still more lamentable. Such is the point of view in which we must consider Philip II. One is foreea to allow that, considered in this way, that prince is a great historical personage,-one of those who have left the deepest marks on the policy of the age which followed,-one of those who exert the greatest influence after them on the course of events. Spaniards, who anathematize the founder of the Escurial, have you, then, forgotten our history, or do you esteem it of no value? Do you stigmatize' him as an odious tyrant? Do you not know that, in denying his glory, in covering it with ignominy, you efface a feature of your own glory, and throw into the mud the diadem which encircled the brows of Ferdinand and Isabella? If you cannot pardon Philip II for having sustained the Inquisition,-if that reason alone obliges you to load his name with execration, do the same with his illustrious father, Charles V.; and, going back to Isabella of Castille, write also on the list of the tyrants and scourges of humanity that name which was venerated by both worlds, and which is the emblem of the glory and power of the Spanish monarchy. They all took part in the fact which excites your indignation; do not curse some, while you lavish hypocritical indulgence on the others. If that indulgence is found in your words, it is that the feeling of nationality which beats in your bosom compels you to partiality-to inconsistency; you recoil when you are about to efface the glories of Spain with a stroke of the pen-to wither all her laurels-to deny your country. We have nothing left, unfortunately, but great recollections; let us at least avoid despising them: these recollections are, in a nation, like the titles of ancient nobility in a fallen family; they raise the mind, they fortify the soul in adversity; and, nourishing hope in the bottom of the heart, they serve to prepare what is to come. The immediate effect of the introduction of Protestantism into Spain would have been, as in other countries, civil war; and this war would have been more fatal to us than to other people, because the circumstances were much more critical for us. The unity of the Spanish monarchy could not have resisted the shocks and disturbances of intestine dissension; the different parts were so heterogeneous among themselves, and were so slightly united, that the least blow would have parted them. The laws and manners of the kingdoms of Navarre and Aragon were very different from those of Castille; a lively feeling of independence, supported by frequent meetings of their own Cortes, was kept alive in the hearts of those unconquered nations; they would certainly have availed themselves of the first opportunity to shake off a yoke which was not pleasing to them. Moreover, in the other provinces, factions were not wanting to distract the country. The monarchy would have been miserably divided at a time when it was necessary to make head in the affairs of Europe, Africa, and America. The Moors were still in sight of our coasts; the Jews had not had time to forget Spain: certainly both would have availed themselves of the conjuncture to raise themselves by means of our discords. On the policy of Philip PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 217 depended not only the tranquillity, but perhaps even the existence of the Spanish monarchy. He is now accused of having been a tyrant; if he had pursued another course, he would have been taxed with incapacity and weakness. One of the most unjust attacks of the enemies of religion against her friends is, to attribute bad faith to them, to accuse them of having in every thing false intentions, tortuous and interested views. When they speak of the Machiavellianism of Philip II., they suppose that the Inquisition, while apparently only religious in its object, was, in reality, an obedient instrument of policy in the hands of a crafty monarch. Nothing is more specious to the man in whose eyes history is only a matter for piquant and malicious observations; but nothing is more false according to facts. Some people, seeing in the Inquisition an extraordinary tribunal, have not been able to imagine the existence of that exceptional tribunal, without supposing, in the monarch who sustained and encouraged it, profound reasons, and views carried much further than appears on the surface of things. They have not been willing to see that an epoch has its spirit, its own manner of regarding things, its own system of action, both in doing good and in preventing evil. During those times, when all the nations of Europe appealed to fire and sword to decide questions of religion, when Protestants and Catholics burnt their adversaries, when England, France, and Germany assisted at the bloodiest scenes, to bring a heretic to the scaffold was a natural and customary thing, which gave no shock to prevailing ideas. We feel our hair grow stiff on our heads at the mere idea of burning a man alive. Placed in society where the religious sentiment is considerably diminished; accustomed to live among men who have a different religion, and sometimes none at all; we cannot bring ourselves to believe that it could be at that time quite an ordinary thing to see heretics or the impious led to punishment. But, if we read the authors of the time, we shall see the immense difference on this point between their manners and ours; and we shall remark, that our language of moderation and toleration would not even have been understood by the man of the sixteenth century. Do you know what Carranza himself, who suffered so much from the Inqui. sition, thought of this matter? Every time that he has occasion to touch on this point in the work which I have quoted, he expresses the ideas of his time, without even staying to prove them; he gives them as undoubted principles. In England, with Queen Mary, he did not fear to express his opinions as to the rigor with which heretics ought to be treated; and he was certainly far from suspecting that his name would one day be made use of to attack this intolerance. Kings and peoples, ecclesiastics and seculars, were all agreed on this point. What would be said now-a-days of a king who would carry with his own hands the wood to burn heretics, and would condemn blasphemers to have their tongues pierced with a hot iron? Now, the first of these things is related of St. Ferdinand, and we know that the second was done by St. Louis. We now exclaim in seeing Philip II. assisting at an auto-da-fe; but, if we consider that the court, the great men, all that was most select in society, surrounded the king on these occasions, we shall understand that, if this spectacle is horrible and intolerable to us, it was not so in the eyes of those men, widely different from us in ideas and feelings. And let it not be said that they wsre forced there by the will of the monarch,-that they were compelled to obey this was not the effect of the monarch's will; it was only a consequence of the spirit of the age. No monarch would have been sufficiently powerful to perform such a ceremony, if the spirit of the age had been opposed to it; besides, no monarch is so hard and insensible as not to feel the influence of the times in which he lives. Suppose the most absolute despot of our time, Napoleon, at the height of his power, or the present Emperor of Russia, and see whether they coul1 thus violate the manners of the age. 28 T '18 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. An anecdote is related which is little adapted to confirm the opinion of those who assert that the Inquisition was a political instrument in the hands of Philip. As it paints in a curious and interesting manner the customs and ideas of the age, 1 will insert it here. Philip II. held his court at Madrid; a certain preacher, in a sermon delivered in presence of the king, advanced, that sovereiqns had an absolute power over the persons as well as over the property of their subjects. The proposition was not of a nature to displease a king; the preacher at one blow relieved kings from all control over the exercise of their power. Now, it seems that at that time all men were not in such abject subjection to despotic control as we have been led to believe; some one was found to denounce to the Inquisition the words in which the preacher had not been ashamed to flatter the absolute power of kings. Surely the orator had chosen a secure asylum; and our readers may well suppose that this denunciation coming into collision with the power of Philip, the Inquisition would have maintained a prudent silence. Yet it was not so: the Inquisition made an inquiry, found the proposition contrary to sound doctrine, and the preacher, who was perhaps far from expecting such a reward, had divers penances imposed on him, and was condemned to retract publicly his proposition in the same place where he had made it. The retractation took place with all the ceremonies of a juridical proceeding; the preacher declared that he retracted his proposition as erroneous; he explained the reasons by reading, as he had been directed, the following words, well worthy of remark: " Indeed, messieurs, kings have no other power over their subjects than that which is given to them by the divine and human law; they have none proceeding from their own free and absolute will." This is related by D. Antonio Perez, as may be seen at length in the note which corresponds to the present chapter. We know, moreover, that he was not a fanatical partisan of the Inquisition. This took place at the time which some persons never mention without stigmatizing it with the words obscurantism, tyranny, and superstition. Yet I doubt whether, at a time nearer to us-that, for example, when it is asserted that light and liberty dawned on Spaih under the reign of Charles ITI.-a public and solemn condemnation of despotism would have been carried so far. This condemnation, at the time of Philip II., did as much honor to the tribunal which ordered it as to the monarch who consented to it. With respect to knowledge, it is a calumny to say that a design was formed to maintain and perpetuate ignorance. Certainly the conduct of Philip does not indicate such a design, when we see this prince, not content with favoring the great enterprise of the Polyglot of Antwerp, recommending to Arias Montanus to devote to the purchase of chosen works, printed or manuscript, the money which would revert to the printer Plantinus, to whom the king had advanced a large sum to aid in the enterprise. This chosen collection was to be placed in the library of the monastery of the Escurial, which was then built. The king had also charged Don Francis de Alaaba, his ambassador in France, to collect in that kingdom the best books which it was possible for him to procure, as he himself says in his letter to Arias Montanus. No; the history of Spain, with respect to intolerance in religious matters, is not so black as it has been represented. When foreigners reproach us with cruelty, we will reply that, when Europe was stained with blood by civil wars, Spain was at peace. As to the number of persons who perished on the scaffold or died in exile, we challenge the two nations who claim to be at the head of civilization, France and England, to show us their statistics on that subject at the same time, and to compare them with ours: we do not fear the comparison. In proportion as the danger of the introduction of Protestantism into Spain diminished, so did the rigor of the Inquisition. We may observe, moreover, that the procedure of that tribunal always became milder, in accordance with PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOUCITY. 219 tho spirit of criminal legislation in the other countries of Europe. Thus we see the auto-da-fe becoming more rare as we approach our own times, so that, at the end of the last century, the Inquisition was only a shadow of what it had been. It is useless to insist on this point, which nobody denies, and on which we are in unison with the most ardent.enemies of that tribunal; and this it is which, in our eyes, proves, in the most convincing manner, that we must seek in the ideas and manners of the time, what people have attempted to find in the cruelty, in the wickedness, or in the ambition of men. If the doctrines of those who plead for the abolition of the punishment of death are carried into effect, posterity, when reading the executions of our time, will be seized with the same horror with which we view the punishment of times past, and the gibbet and the guillotine will figure in the same rank as the ancient Quemaderos. (26) CHAPTER XXXVIII. RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THEMSELVES. RELIGIOUS institutions are another of those points whereon Protestantism and Catholicity are in complete opposition to each other: the first abhors, the second loves them; the one destroys them, the other establishes and encourages them. One of the first acts of Protestantism, whenever it is introduced, is to attack religious institutions by its doctrines and its acts; it labors to destroy them immediately; one would say that the pretended Reformation cannot behold without irritation those holy abodes, which continually remind it of the ignominious apostacy of its founder. Religious vows, especially that of chastity, have been the subject of the most cruel invectives on the part of Protestants; but it must be observed, that what is said now, and what has been repeated for three centuries, is only the echo of the first voice which was raised in Germany; and what was that voice? It was the voice of a monk without modesty, who penetrated into the sanctuary and carried away a victim. All the pomp of learning employed to combat a sacred dogma is insufficient to hide so impure an origin. Through the excitement of the false prophet we perceive the impure flames which devour his heart.' Let us observe in passing, that the same thing took place with respect to the celibacy of the clergy. Protestants, from the beginning, could not endure this; they threw off the mask, and condemned it without disguise; they attempted to combat it with a certain ostentation of learning; but, at the bottom of all their declamation, what do we find? The clamor of a priest who has forgotten his duty; who strives against the remorse of his conscience, and endeavors to hide his shame by diminishing the horror of the scandal by the allegations of falsehood. If such conduct had been pursued by the Catholics, all the arms of ridicule would have been employed to cover them with contempt, to stamp it, as it deserves, with the brand of infamy; but it was a man who declared deadly war against Catholicity: that was enough to turn away the contempt of philosophers, and find indulgence for the declamation of a monk whose first argument against celibacy was, to profane his vows and consummate a sacrilege. The rest of the disturbers of that age imitated the example of so worthy a master. All demanded and required from Scripture and philosophy a veil to cover their weakness and baseness. Just punishment! blindness of the mind was the result of corruption of the heart; impudence sought and obtained the companionship of error. Never is the mind more vile than when, to excuse a fault, it becomes the accomplice of it; then it is not deceived, but prostituted. This hatred of religious institutions has been inherited by philosophy from Protestantism. This is the reason why all revolutions, excited and guided by 220 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. Protestants or philosophers, have been signalized by their intolerance towards the institutions themselves, and by their cruelty towards those who belonged to them. What the law could not do was completed by the dagger and the torch of the incendiary. What escaped the catastrophe was left to the slow punishment of misery and famine. On this point, as well as on many others, it is manifest that the infidel philosophy is the daughter of the Reformation. It is useless to seek for a more convincing proof of this than the parallel of the histories of both, in all that relates to the destruction of religious institutions; the same flattery of kings, the same exaggeration of the civil power, the same declamation against the pretended evil inflicted on society, the same calumnies; we have only to change the names and the dates. And we must also remark this peculiarity, that, in this matter, the difference which, apparently, ought to have resulted from the progress of toleration and the softening of manners in recent times, has scarcely been felt. But is it true that religious institutions are as contemptible as they have been represented? is it true that they do not even deserve attention, and that all the questions relating to them can be solved by merely pronouncing the word fanaticism? Does not the man of observation, the real philosopher, find in them any thing worthy of attracting his attention? It is difficult to believe that such was the nullity of these institutions, whose history is so grand, and which still preserve in their existence the promise of a great future. It is difficult to believe that such institutions are not worthy of attention in the highest degree, and that their study is wholly devoid of lively interest and solid profit. We see them appear at every epoch of Church history; their memorials and monuments are found every moment under our feet; they are preserved in the regions of Asia, in the sands of Africa, in the cities and solitudes of America; in fine, when, after so much adversity, we see them more or less prosperous in the various countries of Europe, sending forth again fresh shoots in those lands where their roots had been the most deeply torn up, there naturally arises in the mind a spirit of curiosity to examine this phenomenon, to inquire what is the origin, the genius, and the character of these institutions. Those who love to descend into the heart of philosophical questions discover, at first sight, that there must be there an abundant mine of the most precious information for the science of religion, of society,'and of man. He who has read the lives of the ancient fathers of the desert without being touched, without feeling profound admiration, -and being filled with grave and lofty thoughts; he who, treading under his feet with indifference the ruins of an ancient abbey, has not called up in fancy the shades of the cenobites who lived and died there; he who passes coldly through the corridors and cells of convents half demolished, and feels no recollections, and not even the curiosity to examine,-he may close the annals of history, and may cease to study the beautiful and the sublime. There exist for him no historical phenomena, no beauty, no sublimity; his mind is in darkness, his heart is in the dust. With the intention of hiding the intimate connection which subsists between religious institutions and religion herself, it has been said that she can exist without them. This is an incontrovertible truth, but abstract and wholly useless-a barren and isolated assertion, which can throw no light upon science, nor serve as any practical guide-an insidious truth, which only tends entirely to change the whole state of the question, and persuade men that when religious institutions are concerned, religion has nothing to do with the matter. There is here a gross sophism, which is too much employed, not only on this question, but on many others. This consists in replying to all difficulties by a proposition perfectly true in itself, but which has nothing to do with the questionl. By this means, attention is turned another way; the palpable truth which is presented to the mind makes men wander from the principal object, and PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 221 induces them to take that for a solution which is only a distraction. With respect, for example, to the support of the clergy and divine worship, it is said, "Temporals are altogether different from spirituals." When the ministers of religion are systematically calumniated, " Religion," they say, " is one, thing, and her ministers are another." If it is wished to represent the conduct of Rome for many centuries as an uninterrupted chain of injustice, of corruption, and of invasion of right, all reply is anticipated by saying, " The supremacy of the Sovereign Pontiff has nothing to do with the vices of Popes or their ambition." Reflections perfectly just, and truths palpable, no doubt, which are very useful in certain cases, but which writers of bad faith cunningly employ to conceal from the reader the real object they have in view. Such are the jugglers who attract the attention of the simple multitude on one side, while their companions perform their criminal operations on the other. Because a thing is not necessary to the existence of another, it does not follow that the first does not originate in the second,-does not find in the spirit of the latter its peculiar and permanent existence, and that a system of intimate and delicate relation does not subsist between them. The tree can subsist without flowers and fruits; these can certainly fall without destroying the trunk; but as long as the tree shall exist, will it ever cease to give proofs of its vigor and its beauty, and to offer its flowers to the eye, and its fruits to the taste? The stream may constantly flow in its crystal bed without the green margin which embellishes its sides; but while its source is not dried up-as long as the fertilizing water penetrates the ground, can its favored banks remain dry, barren, without color and ornament? Let us apply these images to our subject. It is certain that religion can exist without religious communities, and that their ruin does not necessarily entail that of religion herself. More than once it has been seen that in countries where religious institutions have been destroyed, the Catholic faith has been long preserved. But it is not less certain, that there is a necessary dependence between them and religion; that is, that she has given being to them, that she animates them with her spirit, and nourishes them with her substance: this is the reason why they immediately germinate wherever the Catholic faith takes root; and if they have been driven from a country where she continues to exist, they will reappear. Without alluding to the examples of other countries, do we not see this phenomenon take place in France in a remarkable manner? The number of convents of men and women which are again established on the French soil is already very considerable. Who would have told the men of the Constituent Assembly, the Legislative Assembly, the Convention, that half a century should not elapse without seeing religious insti. tutions reappear and flourish in France, in spite of all their efforts to destroy even their memory? " If that happen," they would have said, "it will be because the revolution which we are making will not be allowed to triumphbecause Europe will have again imposed despotism upon us; then, and then only, will be witnessed in France-in Paris-in this capital of the Christian world-the re-establishment of religious institutions, that legacy of fanaticism and superstition, transmitted to us by the ideas and manners of an age which has passed away, never to return." Senseless men! your revolution has triumphed; you have conquered Europe; the old principles of the French monarchy have been erased from. legislation, institutions, and manners; the genius of war has led your doctrines in triumph over Europe, and they were gilded by the rays of your glory. Your principles, all your recollections have again triumphed at a recent period; they still live in all their force and pride, personified in some men who glory in being the heirs of what they call the glorious Revolution of'89; and yet, in spite of so many triumphs, although your revolution has only receded as much as was necessary the better to secure its conquests, religious institutions have again arisen-they cx T2 222- PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOL1CITY. tend, they are propagated everywhere, and they regain an important place in the annals of our times. To prevent this revival, it would have been necessary to extirpate religion; it was not enough to persecute her; faith remained like a precious germ covered by stones and thorns; Providence sends down a ray of that divine star which softens stones, and gives life and fertility; the tree rises again in all its beauty, in spite of the ruins which hindered its growth and development, and its leaves are immediately covered with charming blossoms:behold the religious institutions which you thought were for ever annihilated! The example which we have just mentioned clearly shows the truth of what we wish to establish, with respect to the intimate connection which exists between religion and religious institutions. Church history furnishes proofs in support of this truth. Besides, the mere knowledge of religion, and of the nature of the institutions of which we speak, would suffice to prove it to us, even if we had not history and experience in our favor. The force of general prejudice on this subject is such, that it is necessary to descend to the root of things, to show.the complete mistake of our adversaries. What are religious institutions considered generally? Putting aside the differences, the changes, the alterations necessarily produced by variety of times, countries, and other circumstances, we will say that a religious institute is a society of Christians living together, under certain rules, for the purpose of practising the Gospel precepts. We include, in this definition, even the orders which are not bound by a vow. It will be seen that we have considered the religious institution in its most general sense, laying aside all that theologians and canonists say with respect to the conditions indispensable to constitute or complete its essence. We must, moreover, observe that we ought not to exclude from the honorable denomination of religious institutes, those associations which possess all the conditions except the vows. The Catholic religion is fertile enough to produce good by means and forms widely different. In the generality of religious institutions, she has shown us what man can do by binding himself by a vow, for his whole life, to a holy abnegation of his own will; but she has also wished to show us that, while leaving him at liberty, she could attach him by a variety of ties, and make him persevere until death, as if he had been obliged by a perpetual vow. The congregation of the oratory of St. Philip Neri, which is found in this latter category, is certainly worthy of figuring among religious institutions as one of the finest monuments of the Catholic Church. I am aware that the vow is comprised in the essence of religious institutes, as they are commonly understood; but my only object now is, to vindicate this kind of association against Protestants. Now we know that they condemn indiscriminately, associations bound by vows and those which only consist of the permanent and free adhesion of the persons who compose them. All that has the form of a religious community is regarded by them with a look of anger. When they proscribed the religious orders, they included in the same fate those which had vows and those which had not. Consequently, when defending them, we must class them together. Moreover, this will not prevent our considering the vow in itself, and justifying it before the tribunal of philosophy. I do not imagine that it is necessary to say more to show that the object of religious institutions-that is, as we have just said, the putting in practice of the Gospel counsels-is in perfect uniformity with the Gospel itself. And let us well observe that, whatever may be the name, whatever may be the form of the institutions, they have always for their object something more than the simple observance of the precepts; the idea of perfection is always included, then, either in the active or the contemplative life. To keep the Divine commandments is indispensable to all Christians who wish to possess eternal life; the religious orders attempt a more difficult path; they aim at perfection. This i the object of the men who, after having heard these words from the mouth or PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 223 their Divine Master: " If you wish to be perfect, go sell all you have, and give it to the poor," Iave not departed sorrowful, like the young man in the Gospel, but have embraced with courage the enterprise of quitting all and following Jesus Christ. We have now inquired whether association is the best means to carry into execution so holy an object. It would be easy for me to show this by adducing various texts of Scripture, where the true spirit of the Christian religion, and the will of our Divine Master, are clearly shown on this point; but the taste of our age, and the self-evidence even of the truths in question, warn us to avoid, as much as possible, all that savors of theological discussion. I will remove the question, then, from this level, to consider it in a light purely historical and philosophical; that is to say, without accumulating citations and texts, I will prove that religious institutes are perfectly conformable to the spirit of the Christian religion; and that consequently that spirit has been deplorably mistaken by Protestants, when they have condemned or destroyed them. If philosophers, while they do not admit the truth of religion, still avow that it is useful and beautiful, I will prove to them that they cannot condemn those institutions which are the necessary result of it. In the cradle of Christianity, when men preserved, in all their energy and purity, the sparks from the tongues of the Holy Spirit; in those times, when the words and examples of its Divine Founder were still fresh, when the number of the faithful who had had the happiness of seeing and hearing Him was still very great in the Church, we see the Christians, under the direction of the Apostles themselves, unite, have all their property in common; thus forming only one family, the Father of which was in heaven, and which had only one heart and one soul. I will not dispute as to the extent of this primitive proceeding; I will abstain from analyzing the various circumstances which accompanied it, and from examining how far it resembled the religious institutions of latter times; it is enough to state its existence, and show therefrom what is the true spirit of religion with respect to the most proper means to realize evangelical perfection. I will only allude to the fact, that Cassian, in the description which he gives of the commencement of religious institutions, assigns as their cradle the proceeding we have just mentioned, and which is reported in the Acts of the Apostles. According to the same author, this kind of life was never wholly interrupted; so that there were always some fervent Christians who continued it; thus attaching, by a continued chain, the existence of the monks to the primitive associations of the apostolical times. After having described the kind of life of the first Christians, and traced the alterations of the times that followed, Cassian continues thus: "Those who preserved the apostolical fervor in this way, recalling primitive perfection, quitted towns, and the society of those who believed that they were allowed to live with less severity; they began to choose secret and retired places, where they could follow in private the rules which they remembered to have been appointed by the Apostles for the whole body of the Church in general. Thus commenced the formation of the discipline of those who had quitted that contagion, as they lived separate from the rest of the faithful; abstaining from marriage, and having no communication with the world, even with their own families. In the progress of time, the name of monks was. given to them, in consideration of their singular and solitary life." (Collat. 18, cap. 5.) Times of persecution immediately followed, which, with some interruptions, that may be called moments of repose, lasted till the conversion of Constantine. There were, then, during this time, some Christians who attempted to continue the mode of life of the apostolical years. Cassian clearly indicates this in the passage which we have just read. He omits to say that this primitive life was necessarily modified, in its exterior form, by the calamities with which the 224 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. Church was afflicted at that period. In all that time we ought not to look for Christians living in community; we shall find them confessing Jesus Christ, with imperturbable calmness, on the rack, amid all torments, in the circus, where they were torn to pieces by wild beasts, on the scaffold, where they quietly gave up their heads to the axe of the executioner. But observe what happened even during the time of persecution; the Christians, of whom the world was not worthy, pursued in the towns like wild beasts, wandered about in solitude, seeking refuge in the deserts. The solitudes of the East, the sand and rocks of Arabia, the most inaccessible places of the Thebaid, receive those troops of fugitives, who dwell in the abodes of wild beasts, in abandoned graves, in dried-up cisterns, in the deepest caverns, only asking for an asylum for meditation and prayer. And do you know the result of this? These deserts, in which the Christians wander.ed, like a few grains of sand driven by the wind, became peopled, as it were by magic, with innumerable religious communities. There they meditated, prayed, and read the Gospel; hardly had the fruitful seed touched the earth, when the precious plant arose in a moment. Admirable are the designs of Providence! Christianity, persecuted in the towns, fertilizes and embellishes the deserts; the precious grain requires for its development neither the moisture of the earth nor the breeze of a mild atmosphere; when carried through the air on the wings of the storm, the seed loses nothing of its vitality; when thrown on a rock, it does not perish. The fury of the elements avails nothing against the work of God, who has made the north wind His courser: the rock ceases to be barren when He pleases to fertilize it. Did He not make pure water spring forth at the mysterious touch of His Prophet's rod? When peace was given to the Church by the conqueror of Maxentius, the germs contained in the bosom of Christianity were able to develope themselves everywhere; from that moment the Church was never without religious communities. With history in our hands, we may defy the enemies of religious institutions to point out any period, however short, when these institutions had entirely disappeared. Under some form or in some country, they have always perpetuated the existence which they had received in the early ages of Christianity. The fact is certain and constant, and is found in every page of ecclesiastical history; it plays an important part in all the great events in the annals of the Church. It is found in the west and in the east, in modern and in ancient times, in the prosperity and in the adversity of the Church; when the pursuit of religious perfection was an honor in the eyes of the world, as well as when it was an object of persecution, raillery, and calumny. What clearer proof can there be that there is an intimate connection between religious institutions and religion herself? What more is required to show us that they are her spontaneous fruit? In the moral and in the physical order of things, the constant appearance of the one following the other, is regarded as a proof of the reciprocal dependence of two phenomena. If these phenomena have towards each other the relations of cause and effect-if we find in the essence of the one all the principles that are required in the production of the other, the first is called the cause and the other the effect. Wherever the religion of Jesus Christ is established, religious communities are found under some form or other; they are, therefore, its spontaneous effect. I do not know what reply can be made to so conclusive an argument. By viewing the question in this way, the favor and protection which religious institutions always found with the Pontiff is naturally explained. It was his duty to act in conformity with the spirit which animates the Church, of which he is the chief ruler upon earth; it is certainly not the Pope who has made the regulation, that one of the means most apt to lead men to perfection is to unite themselves in associations under certain rules in conformity with the instruc PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 225 tions of their Divine Master. The Eternal Lord thus ruled in the secrets of His infinite wisdom, and the conduct of the Popes could not be contrary to the designs of the Most High. It has been said that interested views interposed; it has been said that the policy of the Popes found in these institutions a powerful means of sustaining and aggrandizing itself. But can you not see any thing but the sordid instruments of cunning policy in the societies of the primitive faithful, in the monasteries of the solitudes of the East, in that crowd of institutions which have had for their object only the sanctification of their own members and the amelioration of some of the great evils of humanity? A fact so general, so great, so beneficent, cannot be explained by views of interest and narrow designs; its origin is higher and nobler; and he who will not seek for it in heaven ought at least to seek for it in something greater than the projects of a man or the policy of a court; he ought to seek for lofty ideas, sublime feelings, capable, if they do not mount to heaven, at least of embracing a large part of the earth; nothing less is here required than one of those thoughts which preside over the destinies of the human race. Some persons may be inclined to imagine private designs on the part of the Popes, because they see their authority interfere in all the foundations of later ages, and their approbation constitute the validity of the rules of religious institutions; but the course pursued in this respect by ecclesiastical discipline shows us that the most active intervention of the Popes, far from emanating from private views, has been called for by a necessity of preventing an excessive multiplication of the religious orders in consequence of an indiscreet zeal. This vigilance in preventing abuses was the origin of this supreme intervention. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the tendency to new foundations was so strong that the most serious inconveniences would have resulted from it, without a continual watchfulness on the part of the ecclesiastical authority. Thus we see the Sovereign Pontiff Innocent III. ordain, in the Council of Lateran, that whoever wished to found a new religious house shall be bound to adopt one of the approved rules and institutions. But let us pursue our design. I can understand how those who deny the truth of the Christian religion, and turn into ridicule the counsels of the Gospel, bring themselves to deny all that is celestial and divine in the spirit of the religious communities; but the truth of religion once established, I cannot conceive how men who boast of following its laws can declare themselves the enemies of these institutions considered in themselves. How can he who admits the principle refuse the consequence? How can he who loves the cause reject the effect? They must either affect a religion hypocritically, or they profess without comprehending it. In default of any other proof of the anti-evangelical spirit which guided the leaders of the pretended Reformation. their hatred to an institution so evidently founded on the Gospel itself should suffice. Did not these enthusiasts for reading the Bible without note or comment-they who pretend to find all its passages so clear-did they not remark the plain and easy sense of that multitude of passages which recommend self-abnegation, the renunciation of all possessions, and the privation of all pleasures? These words are plain-they cannot be taken in any other signification-they do not require for their comprehension a profound study of the sacred sciences, or that of languages; and yet they have not been heard: we should rather say, they have not been listened to. The intellect has understood, but the passions have rejected them. As to those philosophers who have regarded religious institutions as vain and contemptible, if not dangerous, it is clear that they have meditated but little on the human mind, and on the deep feelings of our hearts, full as they are of mystery. As their hearts have felt nothing at the sight of those numbers of men and women assembled for the purpose of sanctifying themselves or others, 29 2r 6 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. or of relieving wants, and consoling the unfortunate, it is but too clear that theii souls have been dried up by the breath of skepticism. To renounce for ever all the pleasures of life; to live in solitude, there to offer one's self, in austerity and penance, as a holocaust to the Most High: this, certainly is a matter of horror to those philosophers who have only viewed the world through their own prejudices. But humanity has other thoughts; it feels itself attracted by those objects which philosophers find so vain, so devoid of interest, so worthy of horror. Wonderful are the secrets of our hearts! Although enervated by pleasure, and involved in the whirlwind of amusement and mirth, we cannot avoid being seized with deep emotion at the sight of austerity and recollection of soul. Solitude, and even sadness itself, exert an inexpressible influence over us. Whence comes that enthusiasm which moves a whole nation, excites and makes it follow, as if by enchantment, the steps of a man whose brow is marked by recollection, whose features display austerity of life, whose clothes and manners show freedom from all that is earthly, and forgetfulness of the world? Now, it is a fact, proved by the history both of true and of false religions; so powerful a means of attracting respect and esteem has not remained unknown to imposture: licentiousness and corruption, desirous of making their fortunes in the world, have more than once felt the imperious necessity of disguising themselves under the mantle of austerity and purity. What at first sight might appear the most opposed to our feelings, the most repugnant to our tastes-this shade of sadness diffused over the recollection and solitude of the religious life-is precisely what enchants and attracts us the most. The religious life is solitary and pensive; therefore it is beautiful, and its beauty is sublime. Nothing is more apt than this sublimity to move our hearts deeply, and make indelible impressions on them. In reality, our soul has the character of an exile; it is affected by melancholy objects only; it has not attained to that noisy joy which requires to borrow a tint of melancholy only for the sake of a happy contrast. In order to clothe beauty with its most seductive charms, it is necessary that a tear of anguish should flow from her eyes, that her forehead should assume an air of sadness, and her cheeks grow pale with a melancholy remembrance. In order that the life of a hero excite a lively interest in us, it is requisite that misfortune be his companion, lamentation his consolation-that disaster and ingratitude be the reward of his virtues. If you wish that a picture of nature or art should strongly attract our attention, take possession of and absorb the powers of our soul, it is necessary that a memorial of the nothingness of man, and an image of death, should he presented to our minds; our hearts should be appealed to by the feelings of a tranquil sadness; we desire to see sombre tints on a monument in ruins-the cross reminding us of the abode of the dead, the massive walls covered with moss, and pointing out the ancient dwelling of some powerful man, who, after having lived on earth for a short time, has disappeared. Joy does not satisfy us, it does not fill our hearts; it intoxicates and dissipates them for a few moments; but man does not find there his happiness, because the joys of earth are frivolous, and frivolity cannot attach a traveller who, far from his country, walks painfully through the valley of tears. Thence it comes that, while sorrow and tears are accepted-we should rather say, are carefully sought for by art-whenever a deep impression is to be made upon the soul, joy and smiles are inexorably banished. Oratory, poetry, sculpture, painting, music, have all constantly followed the same rule; or, rather, have always been governed by the same instinct. It certainly required a lofty spirit and a heart of fire to declare that the soul is naturally Christian. In these few words an illustrious thinker has known how to express all the relations which unite the faith, morality, and counsels of this divine religion, with all that is most intimate, delicate, and noble in our hearts. Do you know Christian pensiveness; that grave and elevated feeling which is painted on the forehead of the Christian, PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 227 SIke a memorial of sorrow on that of an illustrious proscribed one; this feeling which moderates the enjoyments of life by the image of the tomb, and lights up the depths of the grave with the rays of hope; that pensiveness so natural and consoling, so grave and noble, which causes diadems and sceptres to be trodden under foot like dust, and the greatness and splendor of the world to be despised as a passing illusion? This melancholy, carried to its perfection, vivified and fertilized by grace, and subjected to a holy rule, is what presides over the foundation of religious institutions, and accompanies them as long:s they preserve their primitive fervor, which they received from men who were guided by divine light, and animated by the Spirit of God. This holy melancholy, which carries with it freedom from all earthly things, is the feeling which the Church wishes to instil into and preserve in, the religious orders, when she surrounds their silent abodes with a shade of retirement and meditation. That amid the fury and the convulsions of parties, a mad and sacrilegious hand, secretly excited by malice, should plunge a fratricidal dagger into an innocent heart, or set fire to a peaceful dwelling, may be conceived; for, unhappilyr the history of man abounds in crimes and frenzies; but that the essence of religious institutions should be attacked, that their spirit should be considered narrow and imbecile, that they should be deprived of the noble titles which give honor to their origin, and the beauties which adorn their history, can be allowed neither by the intellect nor by the heart. A false philosophy, which dries up and withers all that it touches, has undertaken so mad a task. But, setting aside religion and reason, literature and the fine arts have rebelled against this attempt; literature and the fine arts, which have need of old recollections, and which are indebted for their wonders to lofty thoughts, to grave and noble scenes, and deep and melancholy feelings; literature and the arts, which delight in transporting the mind of man into regions of light, in guiding the imagination through new and unknown paths, and in ruling the heart by mysterious charms. No; a thousand times no! As long as the religion of that God made man, who had not where to repose his head, and who sat down by a well on the wayside to rest, like an humble traveller, shall last; of that God-man, whose appearance was announced to the nations by a mysterious voice coming from the desert-by the voice of a man clothed in a goat-skin, whose reins were bound with a leathern girdle, and who lived on. nothing but locusts and wild honey: as long as this divine religion shall last, nothing will be more holy or more worthy of our respect than those institutions' the true and original object of which is to realize what Heaven intended to teach man by such eloquent and sublime lessons. Times, vicissitudes, and revolutions, succeed each other; the institution'will change its form, will undergo alterations, will be affected more or less by the weakness of men, by the corrosive action of time, and the destructive power of events; but it will live-it will never perish. If one society rejects it, it will seek an asylum in another; driven from towns, it will take refuge in forests; if there pursued, it will flee to the horrors of the desert. There will always be, in some privileged hearts, an echo for the voice of that sublime religion, which, holding in her hand a standard of sorrow and lovethe sacred standard of the sufferings and death of the Son of God-the Cross, will proclaim to men: " Watch and pray, that you enter not into temptation; if you assemble to pray, the Lord will be in the midst of you; all flesh is but grass; life is a dream; above your heads is an ocean of light and happiness; under your feet an abyss; your life on earth is a pilgrimage, an exile." Then she marks his forehead with the mysterious ashes, telling him, " Thou art dust, and unto dust thou shalt return." We shall perhaps be asked why the faithful cannot practise evangelical perfection while living in the bosom of their families, without assembling in cotn. 228 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. mnunities? We shall reply, that we have no intention of denying the possibility:of that practice, even in the midst of the world; and we willingly acknowledge that a great number of Christians have done so at all times, and do so now; but this does not prove that the surest and easiest means is not that of the life in community with others who have the same object in view, and in retirement'from all the things of this world. Laying aside for a moment all consideration of religion, are you not aware of the ascendency which the spirit of repeated examples exerts on those with whom we live? Do you not know how easily our spirit fails when we find ourselves alone in a difficult enterprise? Do you not know that, in the greatest misfortunes, it is a consolation to behold others participate in our sorrows? On this point, as well as on all others, religion accords with sound philosophy, and both unite in explaining to us the profound meaning contained in those words of Scripture: " Vae soli! Wo to him who is alone!" Before concluding this chapter, I wish to say a few words on the vows which commonly accompany religious institutes. Perhaps they are one of the principal causes of the violent antipathy of Protestantism against these institutions. Vows render things fixed and stable; and the fundamental principle of Protestantism does not admit of fixity or stability. Essentially separating and anarchical, this principle rejects unity and destroys the hierarchy; dissolving in its nature, it allows the mind neither to remain in a permanent faith nor to be subject to rule. For if virtue itself is only a vague entity, which has no fixed foundation-a being which is fed on illusions, and which cannot endure the application of any certain and constant rule, this holy necessity of doing well, of constantly walking in the path of perfection, must be incomprehensible to it, and in the highest degree repugnant; this necessity must appear to'it inconsistent with liberty; as if man, by binding himself by a vow, lost his free will; as if the sanction which a promise given to God imparts to a design, at all diminished the merit of him who has the firmness necessary to accomplish what he had the courage to promise. Those who, to condemn this necessity which man imposes on himself, invoke the rights of liberty against it, seem to forget that this effort of man to make himself the slave of good, and secure his own future, besides the sublime disinterestedness which it supposes, is the vastest exercise which man can make of his liberty. By one act alone, he disposes of his whole life, and by fulfilling the duties resulting from that act, he continually fulfils his own will. But we shall be told that man is so inconstant: this is the reason why, in order to prevent the effects of this inconstancy, he finds himself penetrating into the vicissitudes of the future, renders himself superior to them, and governs them in advance. But, it will be said, in that case, good is done from necessity: this is true; but do you not know that the necessity of doing good is a happy one, and in some measure assimilates man with God? Do you not know that Infinite Goodness is incapable of doing evil, and Infinite Holiness can do nothing that is not holy? Theologians explain why a created being is capable of sinning by pointing out this profound reason. " It is," they say, "because the creature is made out of nothing." When man forces himself, as far as he can, to do well, when he thus fetters his will, he ennobles it, he renders himself more like to God, he assimilates himself to the state of the blessed, who have no longer the melancholy liberty of doing evil, and who are under the happy necessity of loving God. The name of liberty, from the time when Protestants and false philosophers took possession of it, seems condemned to be ill understood in all its applications. In the religious, moral, social, and political order, it is enveloped in such obscurity, that we can perceive the many efforts which have been made to darken and misrepresent it. Cicero gives an adm'-able definition of liberty when he PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 229 says, that it consists in being the slave of law. In the same way it may be said, that the liberty of the intellect consists in being the slave of truth; and the liberty of the will in being the slave of virtue; if you change this, you destroy liberty. If you take away the law, you admit force; if you take away the truth, you admit error; if you take away virtue, you admit vice. If you venture to exempt the world from the external law, from that law which embraces man and society, which extends to all orders, which is the divine wisdom applied to reasonable creatures if you venture to seek for an imaginary liberty out of that immense circle, you destroy all; there remains in society nothing but the empire of brute force, and in man that of the passions; with tyranny, and consequently slavery. CHAPTER XXXIX. OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN HISTORY.-THE FIRST SOLITARIES. I HAVE just examined religious institutions in a general point of view, by considering them in their relations with religion and the human mind. I am now going to take a glance at the principal points of their history. This examination, I think, will show us an important truth: viz. that the appearance of these institutions under different forms has been the expression and the fulfilment of great moral necessities, and a powerful means, in the hands of Providence, of promoting not only the spiritual good of the Church, but also the salvation and regeneration of society. It will be understood that it is not possible for me to enter into details, or pass in review the numerous religious institutions which have existed; besides, this is not necessary for my object. I shall limit myself, therefore, to running over the principal phases of religious institutes, and making a few remarks on each of them; I shall act like the traveller who, being unable to make a stay in the country through which he passes, looks at it for a short time from the highest points. I will begin with the solitaries of the East. The Colossus of the Roman Empire threatened an approaching and stunning fall: the spirit of life was rapidly becoming extinguished, and there was no longer any hope of a breath to reanimate it. The blood circulated slowly in its veins; the evil was incurable: the symptoms of corruption everywhere mani, fested themselves, and this agony was exactly coincident with the critical and formidable hour when it was necessary to collect all its forces to resist the violent shock which was about to destroy it. The barbarians appeared on the frontiers of the empire, like the carnivorous animals attracted by the exhalations of a dead body; and at this crisis society found itself on the eve of a fearful catastrophe. All the world was about to undergo an alarming change; the next day was not likely to resemble the last; the tree was about to be torn up; but its roots were too deep for it to be extirpated without changing the whole face of the soil where it was planted. The greatest refinement had to contend with barbarian ferocity,-the effeminate luxury of southern nations with the energy of the robust sons of the forest; the result of the struggle could not be doubtful. Laws, customs, manners, monuments, arts and sciences, -all the civilization and refinement acquired during the course of many ages was all in peril, all foreboded approaching ruin, all understood that God had appointed an end to the power, and even the existence of the rulers of the globe. The barbarians were only the instrument of Providence; the hand which had given a mortal blow to the mistress of the world, the queen of nations, was that formidable hand which touches mountains with fire, and reduces them to ashes, which touches the rocks and melts them like metal; it was the hand of U 230 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. Him who sends forth His fiery breath upon the nations, and burns them up like straw. The world must be the prey of chaos for a short time; but was not light again to come upon it? Was mankind to be melted, like gold in the furnace, in order to come out more brilliant and more pure? Were ideas respecting God and man to be corrected? Were more delicate and exalted notions of morality to be diffused? Was it reserved for the heart of man to receive more grave and sublime inspirations, to emerge from its corrupt state, and live in an atmosphere higher and more'worthy of an immortal being? Yes! Providence thus decreed, and His infinite wisdom has brought about this end by ways which man could not understand. Christianity was already spread over the face of the world; her holy doctrines, rendered fruitful by grace, prepared the complete regeneration of the world; but it was necessary that mankind should again receive a new impulse from her divine hands, that the mind of man should be moved by a new shock, that it might take its proper flight, and raise itself at once to the exalted position which was intended for it, and from which it was never to descend. History tells us of the obstacles which opposed the establishment and development of Christianity. According to the warlike expression of the Prophet, God was compelled to assume His sword and buckler; by the strength of wonderful prodigies, He broke the resistance of the passions, destroyed every knowledge which raised itself against the knowledge of God, scattered all the powers which rebelled against Him, and extinguished the pride and obstinacy of hell. When, after three centuries of persecution, victory declared itself throughout the world in favor of the true religion; when the temples of the false gods were deserted, and those idols which were not yet overthrown trembled on their pedestals; when the sign of Calvary was inscribed on the Labarum of the Coesars, and the legions of the empire bowed religiously before the Cross, then had the moment arrived for Christianity to realize, in a permanent manner, in those sublime institutions conceived and established by herself alone, the lofty counsels given three centuries before in Palestine. The wisdom of philosophers had been vain; the time was come to realize the wisdom of the Carpenter of Nazareth, of Him who, without having consulted human learning, had proclaimed and taught truths unknown to the most privileged of mortals. The virtues of the Christians had already emerged from the obscurity of the catacombs; they were to be resplendent in the light of heaven and amid peace, as they had formerly shone in the depths of dungeons and amid the flames. Christianity had obtained possession of the sceptre of command, as of the domestic hearth; her disciples, who now were multitudinous, nQ longer lived in a community of goods; it is clear that entire continence, and complete freedom from all earthly things, could no longer be the mode of life of the regenerated families. The world was to continue; the duration of the human race was not to cease at this point of its career; therefore, all Christians were not to observe the lofty counsels which convert the life of man on earth into the angelic. A. great number of them were to belong to those who, in order to obtain eternal life, were satisfied with keeping the precepts, without aspiring to the sublime perfection which results from the renouncement of all that is earthly, and the complete abnegation of self. Yet the Founder of the Christian religion was unwilling that the counsels which He had given to men should be for a moment without some disciples amid the coldness and dissipation of the world. He had not given them in vain; and, besides, the practice of them, although confined to a limited number of the faithful, exerted on all sides a beneficent influence which facilitated and secured the observance of the precepts. The force of example exerts so powerful an ascendency over the human heart, that it is often sufficient of itself to triumph over the strongest and most obstinate resistance PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 231 there is something in our hearts which inclines them to sympathize with all that approaches them, whether good or evil; and there seems to be a secret stimulus urging us to follow others, whatever direction they may take. Therefore it is that there are so many advantages in the establishment of religious institutions, in which the virtues and austerity of life are given as an example to the generality of men, and make an eloquent reproach to the errors of passion. Providence desired to attain this great end by singular and extraordinary means; the Spirit of God breathed on the earth, and immediately the men and power to commence this great work appeared. The frightful deserts of Thebaid, the burning solitudes of Arabia, Palestine, and Syria, show us men rudely clad, with a mantle of goat-skin on their shoulders, and a plain cowl on their heads: behold all the luxury with which they confound the vanity and pride of worldlings! Their bodies, exposed to the rays of the most burning sun and the most severe cold, besides being attenuated by long fasts, resemble walking spectres who have arisen from the dust of their sepulchres. The herbs of the earth are their only food, water their only drink; the labor of their hands procures for them the scanty resources they require. Under the direction of a venerable old man, whose claims to rule are a long life passed in the desert, and hairs grown white amid privations and austerities, they constantly keep the profoundest silence; their lips are opened only to pronounce the words of prayer; their voice is only heard to intone a hymn of praise to God. For them the world has ceased to exist; the relations of friendship, the sweet ties of family and relationship, are all broken by a spirit of perfection, carried to an extent which surpasses all earthly considerations. The cares of property do not disturb them; before retiring to the desert, they have abandoned all to him who was to succeed them; or they have sold all they had, and given the price to the poor. The Holy Scriptures are the nourishment of their minds; they learn by heart the words of that divine book; they meditate on them unceasingly, beseeching the Lord to grant that they may understand them aright. In their retired meetings, nothing is heard but the voice of some venerable cenobite, explaining with naive simplicity and touching unction the sense of the sacred text; but always in such a way as to draw profit for the purification of souls. The number of these solitaries was so great that we could not credit it, if it were not vouched for by eye-witnesses worthy of the highest respect. As to their sanctity, spirit of penance, and purity of life, we cannot doubt them after the testimonies of Rufinus, Palladius, St. Jerome, St. John Chrysostoin, St. Augustine, and all the other illustrious men who distinguished themselves at that time. The fact is singular, extraordinary, prodigious; but no one can question its historical truth; it is attested by all who came to the desert from all parts to seek for light in their doubts, cures for their evils, and pardon for their sins. I could quote a thousand authorities to prove what I have said; but I will content myself with one, which shall suffice for all-that of St. Augustine. Hear how this holy doctor describes the life of these extraordinary men: "These fathers, not only very holy in their manners, but very learned in the Christian doctrine, excellent men in all respects, do not govern with pride those whom they justly call their sons, on account of the high authority of those who command, and the ready will of those who obey. At the decline of day, one of them, still fasting, quits his habitation, and all assemble to hear their master. Each of these fathers has at least three thousand under his direction; for the number is sometimes much greater. They listen with incredible attention, in profound silence, manifesting by their groans, or tears, or by their modest and tranquil joy, the various feelings which the discourse excites in their souls." (St. Augustin. lib. 1, De AMorubus Ecclesice, cap. 31.) But it will be said, Of what use were these men, except for their own sancti. 232 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. fication? what good did they do to society? what influence did they exert on ideas? what change did they make in manners? If we admit that this plant of the desert was beautiful and fragrant, yet what did it avail? it remained sterile. It certainly would be an error to think that so many thousands of solitaries did not exercise great influence. In the first place, and to speak only of what relates to ideas, we must observe, that the monasteries of the East arose within reach, and under the eyes of, the schools of philosophy. Egypt was the country where the cenobetic life flourished the most. Now every one is aware of the high renown which the schools of Alexandria enjoyed a short time before. On all sides of the Mediterranean-on that border of land which, beginning in Libya, terminates in the Black Sea-men's minds were at that time in a state of extraordinary motion. Christianity and Judaism, the doctrines of the East and those of the West-all was collected and accumulated in this part of the world; the remains of the ancient schools of Greece were formed of the treasures, which the course of ages and the passage of the most famous nations of the earth had brought to those countries. New and gigantic events were come to throw floods of light upon the character and the value of ideas; minds had felt shocks which did not allow them any longer to be contented with the quiet lessons contained in the dialogues of the ancient masters. From these famous countries came the most eminent men of the early ages of Christianity; and we know from their works the extent and elevation of mind which man had attained at that time. Was it possible that a phenomenon so extraordinary-a girdle of monasteries and hermitages, embracing this zone of the world, and showing themselves in the face of the schools of philosophy-should not exert great influence on men's minds? The ideas of the solitaries passed incessantly from the (desert into the towns; since, in spite of all the care which they took to avoid the contact of the world, the world sought and approached them, and continually came to receive their inspirations. When we see the nations crowd to the solitaries the most eminent for their sanctity, to implore from their wisdom a remedy for suffering, and a consolation in misfortunes; when we see these venerable men impart, together with the unction of the Gospel, the sublime lessons which they had learned during long years of meditation and prayer in the silence of solitude, it is impossible not to understand how much these communications must have contributed to correct and elevate ideas relating to religion and morality, and to amend and purify morals. Let us not forget that the human mind was, as it were, materialized by the corruption and grossness of the pagan religion. The worship of nature, of sensible forms, was so deeply rooted that, in order to raise minds to the conception of superior things, a strong and extraordinary reaction was required; it was necessary in some measure to annihilate matter in order to present to man only the mind. The life of the solitaries was the best adapted to produce this effect. In reading the history of these times, we seem to find ourselves transported out of this world; the flesh has disappeared, and there remains nothing but the spirit; and the force which has been employed in order to subdue the flesh is such-they have insisted so much on the vanity of earthly things-that reality itself is changed into illusion, and the physical world vanishes to make way for the moral and intellectual; all the ties of earth have been broken; man puts himself in intimate communication with Heaven. Miracles multiply exceedingly in these lives; apparitions continually appear; the abodes of the solitaries are arenas where earthly means are nothing; good angels struggle against demons, heaven against hell, God against Satan: the earth is there only to serve as a field of battle; the body exists no longer except to be consumed as a holocaust on the altars of virtue, in the presence of the demon who struggles furiously to render it the slave of vice. What has become of the idolatrous worship which Greece paid to sensible PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 233 forms, that adoration which it offered to nature by deifying all that was delicious and beautiful, all that could interest the senses and the heart? What a profound change! the same senses are subjected to the most severe privations; they are most strictly circumcised in heart; and man, who then scarcely attempted to raise his mind above the earth, now keeps it constantly fixed on Heaven. It is impossible to form an idea of what we are attempting to describe, without having read the lives of these solitaries; to understand all the effect of their great prodigies, it is necessary to have spent many hours over these pages where, so to speak, nothing is found which follows the natural course of things It is not enough to imagine pure lives, austerities, visions, and miracles; it is necessary to see all this collected together, and carried to the most wonderful e.xtent in the path of perfection. If you refuse to acknowledge the action of grace in facts so surprising; if you will not see any supernatural effect in this religious movement; I say more, if you go so far as to suppose that the mortification of the flesh and the elevation of the soul are carried to blamable exaggeration, still you cannot help allowing that such a reaction was very likely to spiritualize ideas, to awaken the moral and intellectual forces in man, and to concentrate all within himself, by giving him the sentiment of that interior, intimate, and moral life, with which, until then, he had not been occupied. The forehead which, till then, had been bent towards the earth, was raised towards the Divinity; something nobler than material enjoyments was offered to the mind, and the brutal excesses authorized by the example of the false divinities of paganism, at length appeared an offence against the high dignity of human nature. In the moral order, the effect must have been immense. Man, until then, had not even imagined that it was possible to resist the impetuosity of his passions. There were found, it is true, in the cold morality of a few philosophers, certain maxims intended to restrain the dangerous passions; but this morality was only in the books, the world did not regard it as practicable, and if some men attempted to realize it, they did so in such a manner that, far from giving it credit, they rendered it contemptible. What did it avail to abandon riches and profess freedom from all earthly things, as some philosophers did, if at the same time they appeared so vain, so full of themselves, that it was evident that they only sacrificed on the altar of pride? It was to overturn all the idols in order to place themselves on the altar, and reign there without rival gods; this was not to direct the passions, to subject them to reason, but to create a monster passion surpassing and devouring all. Humility, the foundation-stone whereon the solitaries raised the edifice of their virtue, placed them immediately in a position infinitely superior to that of the ancient philosophers who were distinguished for a life more or less severe. In fine, men were taught to avoid vice and practise virtue, not for the futile pleasure of being regarded and admired, but for superior motives founded on the relations of man with God, and the destinies of eternity. From that moment man knew that it was not impossible for him to triumph over evil, in the obstinate struggle which he felt continually going on within himself. At the sight of so many thousands of persons of both sexes who followed a rule of life so pure and austere, mankind took fresh courage, and were convinced that -the paths of virtue were not impracticable for them. The generous confidence with which man was inspired by the sight of such sublime examples, lost nothing of its strength in presence of the Christian dogma, which does not allow actions meritorious of eternal life to be attributed to man himself, and teaches him the necessity of divine aid, if he wishes to escape the paths of perdition. This dogma, which, on the other hand, accords so well with the daily lessons of experience as to human frailty, far from destroy; ing the strength of the mind or diminishing its courage, on the contrary, ani. 30 v2 234 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. mates it more and more to persevere in spite of all obstacles. When man thinks himself alone, when he does not feel himself supported by the powerful hand of Providence; he walks with the tottering steps of infancy; he wants confidence in himself, in his own strength; the object he has in view seems too distant, the enterprise too arduous, and he is discouraged. The dogma of grace, as it is explained by the Catholic Church, is not that fatalist doctrine, the mother of despair, which has hardened the heart among Protestants, as Grotius laments. It is a doctrine which, leaving man all his free will, teaches him the necessity of superior aid; but that aid will be abundantly furnished him by the infinite goodness of God, who has shed His blood for him in torments and ignominy, and has breathed out for him His last sigh on Mount Calvary. It seems as if Providence had been pleased to choose a climate where mankind could make a trial of their strength vivified and sustained by grace. It was under a sky apparently the most fatal for the corruption of the soul, in countries where the relaxation of the body naturally leads to relaxation of mind, and where even the air that they breathed inclined to pleasure, —it was there that the greatest energy of mind was displayed, that the greatest austerities were practised, and the pleasures of the senses were proscribed and banished with the greatest severity. The solitaries fixed their abodes in deserts within the influence of the balmy breezes of the neighboring lands; from their mountains and sandy hills their eyes could distinguish the peaceful and smiling countries which invited to pleasure and enjoyment; like the Christian virgin who abandoned her obscure cave to go and place herself in the hollow of a rock, whence she saw the palace of her fathers overflowing with riches, pleasures, and delights, while she herself lamented like a solitary dove in the holes of the rock. From that time all climates were good fot virtue; austerity of morals did not at all depend on the proximity of the equatorial line; the morality of man, like man himself, could live in all climates. When the most perfect continence was practised in so wonderful a manner under the sky which we have described, the monogamy of Christianity could well be established and preserved. When, in the secrets of the Eternal, the time had arrived for calling a people to the light of truth, it mattered not whether they lived amid the snows of Scandinavia, or on the burning plains of India. The spirit of the divine laws was not to be confined within the narrow circle which the Esprit des Loix of Montesquieu has attempted to assign it. CHAPTER XL. ON RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE EAST. THE influence exercised by the lives of the solitaries of the East ovel religion and morality is beyond a doubt; in truth it'is not easy to appreciate it in all its extent and in all its effects; but it is not the less true and real on that account. It has not marked the doctrines of humanity like those thundering events the effects of which are often inadequate to their promises; but it is like a beneficial rain which, diffusing itself gently over the thirsty earth, fertilizes the meadows and the fields. If it were possible for man to comprehend and distinguish the vast assemblage of causes which have contributed to raise his mind, to give him a lively consciousness of his immortality, and to render a return to his ancient degradation almost impossible, perhaps it would be found that the wonderful phenomenon of the Eastern solitaries had a considerable share in that immense change. Let us not forget that from thence did the great Ien of the East receive their inspiration; St. Jerome lived in a cave at Beth. PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 235 lehem, and the conversion of St. Augustine was accompanied by a holy emulation excited in his mind by reading the life of St. Anthony the Abbot. The monasteries which were founded in the East and West in imitation of these early establishments of the solitaries, were a continuation of them, although with many differences, in consequence of times and circumstances. Thence came the Basils, the Gregories, the Chrysostoms, and so many distinguished men, the glory of the Church. If a miserable spirit of dispute, ambition, and pride, sowing the seeds of discord, had not prepared the rupture which was to deprive the East of the vivifying influence of the Roman See, perhaps the ancient monasteries of the East would have served, like those of the West, to prepare a social regeneration, by forming one people out of the conquerors and the conquered. It is evident that the want of unity was one of the causes of the weakness of the East; I will not deny that their position was very different from ours; the enemy opposed to them did not at all resemble the barbarians of the North; but I am not sure that it was easier to subdue the latter than it was to rule the nations by whom the East was conquered. In the East, the victory remained with the aggressors, as with us; but a conquered nation is not dead; its defeat does not take from it all the great advantages which are able, by giving it a moral ascendency over the conquerors, to prepare, in silence, their transformation, if not their expulsion. The northern barbarians conquered the South of Europe; but the South, in its turn, triumphed over them by the Christian religion; the barbarians were not driven out, but they were transformed. Spain was conquered by the Arabs, and the Arabs could not be transformed; but they were driven out in the end. If the East had preserved unity, if Constantinople and the other episcopal sees had remained subject to Rome like those of the West; in a word, if all the East had been contented to be a member of a great body, instead of having the ambitious pretensions of being a great body.itself, I consider it certain that, after the conquest of the Saracens, a struggle, at once intellectual, moral, and physical, would have been engaged in; a profound change would have been worked in the conquered nation, or the struggle would have ended by the conquering barbarians being driven back to their deserts. It will be said that the transformation of the Arabs was the work of ages. But was not that of the barbarians of the North so likewise? Was this great work finished by their conversion to Christianity? A considerable part of them were Arians; and besides, they understood the Christian ideas so ill, they found the practice of Gospel morality so difficult, that for a long time it was almost as difficult to treat with them as with nations of a different religion. On the other hand, let us not forget that the irruption of the barbarians was not a solitary event; an event which, when once finished, did not recur; it was continued for ages. Buit the force of the religious principle in the West was such, that all the invading nations were compelled to retire, or were forced to bend to the ideas and manners of the countries they had recently acquired. The defeat of the hordes of Attila, the victories of Charlemagne over the Saxons and the other nations beyond the Rhine, the successive conversion of the various idolatrous nations of the North by means of the missionaries sent from Rome, -in fine, the vicissitudes and the final result of the invasions of the Normans, and the ultimate triumph of the Christians of Spain over the Moors after a war of eight centuries, are so many decisive proofs of what I have just laid downviz. that the West, vivified and fortified by Catholic unity, had had the secret of assimilating and appropriating to itself all that it was Dot able to reject, and the force to reject all that it could not make its own. This is what was wanting in the East: the enterprise was not move difficult there than in the West. If the West alone was able to liberate the Holy e 236 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. pulchre, the West and East together would never have lost it; or, at least, after having freed it, they would have kept it for ever. The same cause prevented the monasteries of the East from attaining to the same vitality and energy which distinguished those of the West; therefore, they have always been seen to grow weak with time, without producing any thing great, and capable of preventing social dissolution, of silently preparing and slowly elaborating regeneration for posterity, after the calamities with which it pleased Providence to afflict ancient times. He who has seen in history the brilliant commencement of the Eastern monasteries, cannot behold without pain the decline of their strength and splendor in the course of ages, after the ravages caused by invasion, wars, and finally, the deadly influence of the schism of Constantinople; the ancient abodes of so many men illustrious for science and sanctity gradually disappeared from the page of history like expiring lamps, or the dying fires of an abandoned camp. Immense injury was done to all the branches of human knowledge by this decline, which, after having rendered the East barren, ended by destroying it. If we pay attention, we shall see that, amid the great shocks and revolutions which disturbed Europe, Africa, and Asia, the natural refuge for the remains of ancient knowledge, was not the West, but the East. It was not in our monasteries that the books, and other intellectual riches, of which quieter and happier generations were one day to enjoy the benefit, should naturally have been preserved; this, it would seem, belonged to the monasteries of the eastern countries; those lands, where the most different civilizations were brought together and commingled as on neutral ground; those regions, where the human mind had displayed the greatest activity, and taken the highest flights; where the most abundant treasures of tradition and sciences, and the beauties of art were accumulated; in a word, it was in this vast mart of all the riches of the civilization and refinement of all nations,-it was in this sanctuary and museum of antiquity, that the intellectual patrimony of future generations ought to have been preserved. Let it not, however, be supposed that the monasteries of the East were of no service to the human mind; the science and literature of Europe are still mindful of the impulse which was communicated to them, by the arrival of the precious materials thrown upon the coasts of Italy, after the taking of Constantinople: but even these riches, brought to Europe by a few men, driven upon our shores by a tempest, came to us, like the remains of a shipwrecked crew, who, after having with difficulty saved their lives from the fury of the waves, have only preserved in their benumbed hands some gold and a few precious stones. For this reason, precisely, do we lament, because from the example we have adduced, we are enabled the better to understand the immense riches of the vessel which was lost; this makes us grieve the more bitterly that the early times of the illustrious cenobites of the East have not been brought down to our day by a continued chain. When we see their works overflow with sacred and profane learning, when their labors show us proofs of indefatigable activity, we think with sorrow of the inestimable treasures which their libraries must have contained. Yet, in spite of the justness of the melancholy reflections we have here made, it must be allowed that the influence of these monasteries never ceased to be extremely useful to the preservation of knowledge. The Arabs, in the times of their success, showed themselves to be intelligent and cultivated; and Europe, in many respects, is indebted to them for much advancement. Bagdad and Grenada, during the middle ages, are two brilliant centres of intellectual movement and art, which serve not a little to diminish the sombre effect of the barbarities of Islamism: they are two tranquil and pleasing features in a fright. PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY.'237 ful picture. If it were possible to follow the history of intellectual develop. ment among the Arabs, through the transformations and catastrophes of the East, perhaps we should find in the sciences of the nations which they conquered or destroyed the origin of much of their progress. It is certain that their own civilization did not contain any vital principle favorable to the development of the mind; we have a proof of this in their religious and social organization, and in the small results which they obtained, after having been for so many centuries peacefully established in the conquered countries. Their whole system, with respect to letters and intellectual cultivation, is founded on that stupid maxim, uttered by one of their chiefs, when he condemned an immense library to the flames:'If these books are contrary to the Alcoran, they should be burnt as pernicious; if they are not contrary to it, they should be burnt as useless." We read in Palladius, that the monks of Egypt did not content themselves with working with rude and simple objects, but that they devoted themselves to labors of all kinds. These thousands of men, who, belonging to all classes and to all countries, embraced the solitary life, must have brought to the desert a large treasure of knowledge. We know how far the human mind can go when left to itself, and applied to a fixed occupation; there is always some reason for thinking that a great part of the valuable ideas on the secrets of nature, the utility and properties of certain ingredients, the principles of some of the arts and sciences, knowledge which formed the rich patrimony of the Arabs at the time when they appeared in Europe, were nothing but the remains of ancient learning, gathered by them in countries which had formerly been inundated by men from all parts. We must remember that at the time of the first invasions of the northern barbarians, when Spain, the south of France, Italy, the north of Africa, and all the islands adjacent to these countries, were ravaged by these terrible men, the East became a refuge, an asylum, for all those who could undertake the voyage. Thus the treasures of Western science accumulated every day in these countries; this emigration from all the Western regions may have contributed, in an extraordinary manner, to convey to the East the remains of ancient knowledge, which afterwards came to us transformed and disfigured by the hands of the Arabs. Deeply convinced of the nothingness of the world by so lohg a succession of heavy misfortunes, these unfortunate men felt the religious sentiment strengthened in their hearts; the fugitives assembled in the East listened with lively emotion to the energetic words of the solitary of the cave of Bethlehem. A great many of them retired into the monasteries, where they found relief for their wants, and consolation for their souls; thus did the Eastern monasteries gain a great addition of valuable knowledge and information of all sorts. If European civilization one day become complete mistress of the countries which now groan under the Mussulman yoke, perhaps it will be given to the history of science to add a noble page to its labors, when, through the obscurities of the times, and by means of manuscripts discovered by curiosity or chance, she shall have found the thread which shall lead to a knowledge of the connection of Arabian science with that of antiquity. The succession of transformations will then be displayed, and we shall understand how the science of the sons of Omar has appeared to have a different origin in our eyes. The archives of Spain contain, in documents relating to the dominion of the Saracens, riches, the examination of which may be said not yet to be commenced; perhaps they will throw some light on this point. There is no doubt that they afford matter for careful investigation, extremely curious for appreciating these two very different civilizations, the Mohammedan and the Christian. CHAPTER XLI. OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN TIE HISTORY OF THE WEST. LET us now examine religious institutions, such as they appear in the West, but laying aside those which, although established in various parts of the West, were only a sort of ramification of the Eastern monasteries. We observe that the religious establishments among us added to the Gospel spirit, the principle of their foundation, a new character, that of conservative, restorative, and regenerative associations. The monks of the West were not content with sanctifying themselves; from the first they influenced society. The light and life which their holy abodes contained, labored to enlighten and fertilize the chaos of the world. I do not know in history a nobler or more consoling spectacle than that which is presented to us by the foundation, existence, and development of the religious institutions of Europe. Society had need of strong efforts to preserve its life in the terrible crisis through which it had to pass. The secret of strength is in the union of individual forces, in association; and it is remarkable that this secret has been taught to European society as if by a revelation from heaven. Every thing shakes, falls to pieces, and perishes. Religion, morality, public authority, laws, manners, sciences, and arts-every thing has sustained immense losses, every thing goes to ruin; and judging of the future.fate of the world according to human probabilities, the evils are so great and numerous that a remedy appears impossible. The observer who, fixing his eyes upon those desolate times, finds there St. Bennet giving life to and animating the religious institutions, organizing them, giving them his wise rule and stability, imagines that he sees an angel of light issuing from the bosom of darkness. Nothing can be imagined better calculated to restore to dissolved society a principle of life capable of reorganizing it, than the extraordinary and sublime inspiration which guided this man. Who does not know what at that time was the condition of Italy-I should rather say, of the whole of Europe? What ignorance, what corruption, what elements of social dissolution! What desolation everywhere! and it is amid this deplorable state of things that the holy solitary appears, the child of an illustrious family of Norcia, resolved to combat the evil which threatens to invade the wvorld. His arms are his virtues; the eloquence of his example gives him an irresistible ascendency; elevated above the whole age, burning with zeal, and yet full of prudence and discretion, he founds that institution which is to remain amid the revolution of ages, like the pyramids unmoved by the storms of the desert. What idea has there been more grand, more beneficent, more full of foresight and wisdom? At a time when knowledge and virtue had no longer an asylum, when ignorance, corruption, and barbarism rapidly extended their conquests, was it not a grand idea to raise a refuge for misfortune, to form a sacred deposit for the precious monuments of antiquity, and to open schools of knowledge and virtue, where men destined one day to figure in the vortex of the world might come for instruction? When the reflecting man fixes his attention on the silent abode of Monte Cassino, where the sons of the most illustrious families of the empire are seen to come from all parts to that monastery; some with the intention of remaining there for ever, others to receive a good education, and soon to carry back to the world a recollection of the serious inspirations which the holy founder had received at Subiaco; when the monasteries of the order are seen to multiply everywhere, to be established as great centres of activity in all places-in the plains, in the forests, in the most unin. habited countries; he cannot help bending, with profound veneration, before PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 239 the extraordinary man who has conceived such grand designs. If we are unwilling to acknowledge in St. Bennet a man inspired by Heaven, at least we ought to consider him as one of those geniuses who, from time to tirie, appear on earth to become the tutelary angels of the human race. Not to acknowledge the powerful effect of such institutions would be to show but little intelligence. When society is dissolved, it requires not words, not. projects, not laws, but strong institutions, to resist the shock of the passions, the inconstancy of the human mind, and the destructive power of events; institutions which raise the mind, pacify and ennoble the heart, and establish in society a deep movement of reaction and resistance to the fatal elements which lead if to destruction. If there exists, then, an active mind, a generous heart, a soul animated by a feeling of virtue, they will all hasten to seek a refuge irk the sacred asylums; it is not always granted to them to change the course of the world, but at least, as men of solitude and sacrifice, they labour to instruct and calm their own minds, and they shed a tear of compassion over the senseless generations who are agitated by great disasters. From time to time they succeed in making their voices heard amid the tumult, to alarm the hearts of the wicked by accents which resemble the formidable warnings of Heaven; thus they diminish the force of the evil while it is impossible to prevent, it entirely; by constantly protesting against iniquity, they prevent its acquiring prescriptive right; in attesting to future generations, by a solemn testimony, that there were always, amid darkness and corruption, men who made efforts to enlighten the world and to restrain the torrent of vice and crime, they preserve faith in truth and virtue, and they reanimate the hopes of those who are afterwards placed in similar circumstances. Such was the action of the monks in the calamitous times of which we speak; such was their noble and sublime mission to promote the interests of humanity. Perhaps it will be said that the immense properties acquired by the monasteries were an abundant recompense for their labors, and perhaps also a proof that their exertions were little disinterested. No doubt, if we look at things in the light in which certain writers have represented them, the wealth of the monks will appear as the fruit of unbounded cupidity, of cruelty, and perfidious policy; but we have the whole of history to refute the calumnies of the enemies of religion; and impartial philosophy, while acknowledging that all that is human is liable to abuse, takes care to assume a higher position, to regard things en masse, and to consider them in the vast picture where so many centuries have painted their features. It therefore despises the evil, which is only the exception, while it contemplates and admires the good, which is the rule. Besides the numerous religious motives which brought property into the hands of the monks, there is another very legitimate one, which has always been regarded as one of the justest titles of. acquisition. The monks cultivated waste lands, dried up marshes, constructed roads, restrained rivers within their beds, and built bridges over them; that is to say, in countries which had undergone another kind of general deluge, they renewed, in some measure, what the first nations had done to restore the revolutionized globe to its original form. A considerable portion of Europe had never received cultivation from the hands of men; the forests, the rivers, the lakes, the thorny thickets, were as rough as they had been left by the hands of nature. The monasteries which were founded here and there may be regarded as the centres of action, which the civilized nations established in the new countries, the faces of which they proposed to change by their powerful colonies. Did there ever exist a more legitimate title for the possession of large properties? Is not he who reclaims a waste country, cultivates it, and fills it with inhabitants, worthy of preserving large possessions there? Is not this the natural course;of things? Who knows how many cities and towns arose and flourished under the shadow of the abbeys? 240 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. Monastic properties, besides their substantial utility, had another, which per. haps has not been sufficiently noticed. The situation of a great part of the nations of Europe, at the time we speak of, much resembled the state of fluctuation and inconstancy in which nations are found, who have not yet made any progress in the career of civilization and refinement. The idea of property, one of the most fundamental in all social organization, was but little rooted. Attacks on property at that time were very frequent, as well as attacks on persons. The man who is constantly compelled to defend his own, is also constantly led to usurp the property of others; the first thing to do to remedy so great an evil, was to locate and fix the population by means of the agricultural life, and to accustom them to respect for property, not only by reasons drawn from morality and private interest, but also by the sight of large domains belonging to establishments regarded as inviolable, and against which a hand could not be raised without sacrilege. Thus religious ideas were connected with social ones, and they slowly prepared an organization which was to be completed in more peaceable times. Add to this a new necessity, the result of the change which took place at that time in the habits of the people. Among the ancients, scarcely any other life than that of cities was known; life in the country, that dispersion of an immense population, which in modern times forms a new nation in the fields, was not known among the ancients; and it is remarkable that this change in the mode of life was realized exactly when the most calamitous circumstances seemed to render it the most dangerous and difficult. It is to the existence of the monasteries in fields and in retired places that we owe the establishment and consolidation of this new kind of life, which, no doubt, would have been impossible without the ascendency and the beneficial influence of the powerful abbeys. These religious foundations joined all the riches and the power of feudal lords with the mild and beneficent influence of religious authority. How much does not Germany owe to the monks! Did they not bring her lands into cultivation, make her agriculture flourish, and cover her with a numerous population? How much are not France, Spain, and England indebted to them! It is certain that this latter country would never have reached the high degree of civilization of which she now boasts, if the apostolic labors of the missionaries who penetrated thither in the sixth century had not drawn her out of the darkness of gross idolatry. And who were these missionaries? Was not the chief of them Augustine, a mlonk full of zeal, sent by a Pope who had also been a monk, St. Gregory the Great? Where do you find, amid the confusion of the middle ages, the great writers of knowledge and virtue, except in those solitary abodes whence issue St. Isidore, the Archbishop of Seville; the holy abbot St. Columbanus; St. Aurelian, Bishop of Arles; St. Augustine, the Apostle of England; that of Germany, St. Boniface; Bede, Cuthbert, Auperth, Paul, monks of Monte Cassino; Hincmar of Rheims, brought up at the monastery of St. Denis; St. Peter Damiens, St. Ives, Lanfranc, and so many others, who form a generation of distinguished men, resembling in no respect the other men of their time. Besides the service rendered to society by the monks in religion and morals, they conferred inestimable benefits on letters and science. It has already been observed more than.once, that letters took refuge in the cloisters, and that the monks, by preserving and copying the ancient manuscripts, prepared the materials which were one day to assist in the restoration of human learning. But we must not limit their merit to that of mere copyists. Many of them advanced far in science, many aged in advance of the times in which they lived. Not content with the laborious task of preserving and putting into order the ancient manuscripts, they rendered the most eminent service to history by compiling chronicles. Thereby, while continuing the tradition of the most important PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 241 branches of study, they collected the contemporary history, which, perhaps, without their labor would have been lost. Adon, Archbishop of Vienne, brought up in the Abbey of Ferribre, writes a universal history, from the beginning of the world to his own time; Abbon, monk of St. Germain-des-Pres, composes a Latin poem, in which he relates the siege of Paris by the Normans; Aymon of Aquitaine writes the history of the French in four books; St. Ives publishes a chronicle of their kings; the German monk Witmar leaves us the chronicle of Henry I., of the Kings Otho and Henry II., which is much esteemed for its candor, and has been published many times; Leibnitz has used it to throw light on the history of Brunswick. Adhernar is the author of a chronicle, which embraces the whole time from 829 to 1029. Glaber, monk of Cluny, has composed a much-esteemed history of the events which happened in France from 980 to his own time; Herman, a chronicle which embraces the six ages of the world down to the year 1054. In fine, we should never finish if we were to mention the historical labors of Sigebert, Guibert, Hugh, Prior of St. Victor, and so many other illustrious men, who, rising above their times, applied themselves to labors of this kind; of which we cannot easily appreciate the difficulty and the high degree of merit, we who live in an age when the means of knowledge are become so easy, when the accumulated riches of so many ages are inherited, and when we find on all sides wide and well-beaten paths. Without the existence of religious institutions, without the asylum of the cloisters, these eminent men would never have been formed. Not only had the sciences and letters been lost sight of, but ignorance was so great, that seculars who knew how to read and write were very rare. Surely such circumstances were not well adapted to form men of merit enough to do honor to advanced ages. Who has not often paused to contemplate the distinguished triumvirate, Peter the Venerable, St. Bernard, and the Abbot Suger? May it not be said that the twelfth century is elevated above its rank in history, by producing a writer like Peter the Venerable, an orator like St. Bernard, and a statesman like Suger? These ages show us another celebrated monk, whose influence on the progress of knowledge has not been rated at its just value by many critics who love only to point out defects: I mean Gratian. Those who have declaimed against him, eager to look for his mistakes, should have placed themselves in the position of a compiler in the thirteenth century, at a time when all resources were wanting, when the lights of criticism were yet to be created; they would then have seen whether the bold enterprise of the monk was not attended with more success than there was reason to hope for. The profit which was drawn from the collection of Gratian is incalculable. By giving in a small compass a great part of what was most precious in antiquity with respect to civil and canon law; by making an abundant collection of texts from the holy fathers, applied to all kinds of subjects, he awakened a taste for that species of research; he created the study of them; he made an immense step towards satisfying one of the first necessities of modern nations, the formation of civil and ecclesiastical codes. It will be said that the errors of Gratian were contagious, and that it would have been better to have recourse directly to the originals; but to read the originals it was necessary to know them; it was necessary to be informed of their existence, to be excited by the desire of explaining a proposed difficulty, to have acquired a taste for researches of that kind; all this was wanting before Gratian; all this was brought out by his enterprise. The general favor with which his labors were received is the most convincing proof of their merit; and if it be objected that this favor was owing to the ignorance of the time, I will reply, that we owe a tribute of gratitude to any one who throws a ray of light on the darkness, however feeble and wavering this ray may be. 31 v 242 CHAPTER XLII. OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS DURING THE SECOND HALF OF THE MIDDLE AGES. THE MILITARY ORDERS. THE rapid view which we have just taken of religious institutions from the irruption of the barbarians to the twelfth century, has shown us that the monas. tic foundations, during that time, were a powerful support for that remaining portion of society which was ready to fall to pieces in the universal ruin; an asylum for misfortune, for virtue, and for knowledge; a storehouse for the precious monuments of antiquity,'and in some measure an assemblage of civilizing associations, which labored in silence at the reconstruction of the social edifice, by neutralizing the force of the dissolving principles which had ruined its basis; they were, besides, a nursery for forming the men who were required for the elevated posts in Church and State. In the twelfth and the following centuries, these institutions take a new form, and assume a character very different from that which we have just pointed out. Their aim remains not less highly religious and social; but the times are changed, and we must remember the words of the Apostle, omnia omnibus. Let us examine the causes and the results of these novelties. Before going further, I will say a few words on the religious military orders, the name of which sufficiently indicates their double character of monk and soldier. The union of the monastic state with war: what a monstrous mixture 1 will be the cry. In spite of the supposed monstrosity, this union was in conformity with the natural and regular order of things; it was a strong remedy applied to very great evils; a rampart against imminent dangers; in a word, the expression of a great European necessity. This is not the place to relate the annals of the military orders, annals which, like the most illustrious history, afford wonderful and interesting pictures, with that mixture of heroism and reli gious inspiration which assimilates history with poetry. It is enough to pro nounce the names of the knights of the Temple, of St. John of Jerusalem, of the Teutonic order, of St. Raymond, of the Abbot of Fitero, of Calatrava, instantly to remind the reader of a long series of marvellous events, forming one of the noblest pages in the history of that time. Let us omit these narrations, which do not regard us; but let us pause for a moment to examine the origin and spirit of these famous institutions. The Cross and the Crescent were enemies irreconcilable by nature, and urged to the greatest fury by a long and bloody struggle. Both had great power and vast designs; both were supported by brave nations, full of enthusiasm and ready to throw themselves on each other; both had great hopes of success founded on former achievements; on which side will the victory remain? What course ought the Christians to pursue in order to avoid the dangers which threaten them? Is it better quietly to await the attack of the Mussulmen in Europe, or make a levy en masse to invade Asia and seek the enemy in his own country, where he believes himself to be invincible? The problem was solved in the latter way; the Crusades took place, and centuries have given their suffrage as to the wisdom of that' resolution. What avails a little declamation affecting to favor the cause of justice and humanity? Let no one allow himself to be dazzled; the philosophy of history taught by the lessons of experience, enriched with a more abundant treasure of knowledge, the fruit of a more attentive study of the facts, has given a decisive judgment in this case; in this, as in other cases, religion has retired in triumph from the tribunal of philosophy. The Crusades, far from being considered as an act of barbarism and rashness, are justly regarded as a chef-d'oeuvre of policy, which, after having secured the independence of Europe, gave to the Christian nations a decided preponderance PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 243 over the Mussulmen. The military spirit was thereby increased and strengthened among European nations; they all received a feeling of fraternity, which transformed them into one people; the human mind was developed in many ways; the state of feudal vassals was improved, and feudality was urged towards its entire ruin; navies were created, commerce and manufactures were encouraged; thus society received from the Crusades a most powerful impulse in the career of civilization. We do not mean to say, that the men who conceived them, the Popes who excited, the nations who undertook, the princes and lords who promoted them with their power, were aware of the whole extent of their own works, or even had a glimpse of the immensity of their results; it is enough that they settled the existing question in the way the most favorable to the independence and prosperity of Europe; this, I repeat, is enough. I would observe, moreover, that we should attribute so much the more importance to things as human foresight has had little share in the events; now these things are nothing less than the principles and feelings of religion in connection with the preservation and happiness of society, Catholicity covering with her egis and animating with her breath the civilization of Europe. Such were the Crusades. Now, remember that this idea, so great and generous, was conceived with a degree of vagueness, and executed with that precipitation which is the.fruit of the impatience of ardent zeal; remember that this idea-the offspring of Catholicity, which always converts its ideas into institutions-was to be realized in an institution, which faithfully represented it, and served, as it were, as its organ, in order that it might render itself felt, and gain strength and fruitfulness for its support. After this, you will look for some means of uniting religion and arms; and you will be filled with joy when, under a cuirass of steel,,: shall find hearts zealous for the religion of Jesus Christ-when you shall see this new kind of men, who devote themselves without reserve to the defence of religion, while they renounce all that the world can offer-gentler than lambs, bolder than lions, in the words of St. Bernard. Sometimes they assembled in community, to raise their voices to Heaven in fervent prayer; sometimes they boldly marched to battle, brandishing their formidable lances, the terror of the Saracens. No; there does not exist in the annals of history an event so colossal as the Crusades, and you might search there in vain for an institution more generous than the military orders. In the Crusades we see numberless nations arise,. march across deserts, bury themselves in countries with which they are unacquainted, and expose themselves to all the rigors of climates and seasons; and for what purpose? To deliver a tomb! Grand and immortal movement, where hundreds of nations advance to certain death-not in pursuit of a miserable self-interest-not to find an abode in milder and more fertile countries-not from an ardent desire to obtain for themselves earthly advantages-but inspired only by a religious idea, by a jealous desire to possess the tomb of Him who expired on the cross for the salvation of the human race! When compared with this, what becomes of the lofty deeds of the Greeks, chanted by Homer? Greece arises to avenge an injured husband; Europe to redeem the sepulchre of a God. When, after the disasters and the triumphs of the Crusades, we see the military orders appear, sometimes fighting in the oriental regions, sometimes in the islands of the Mediterranean, sustaining and repelling the rude assaults of Islamism, which, emboldened by its victories, again longs to throw itself on Europe, we imagine that we behold those brave men, who, on the day of a great battle, remain alone upon the field, one against a hundred, securing by their heroism, and at the hazard of their lives, the safety of their companions in arms who retire behind them. Honor and glory to the religion which has been capable of inspiring such lofty thoughts, and has been able to realize such great and generous enterprises! 244 CHAPTER XLIII. CONTINUATION OF THE SAME SUBJECT-EUROPE IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY. PERHAPS they who are the most opposed to religious communities may be reconciled to the solitaries of the East, when they perceive in them a class of men who, by practising the most sublime and austere counsels' of religion, have communicated a generous impulse to humanity, have raised it from the dust where Paganism had held it, and made it wing its flight towards purer regions. To accustom man to grave and strict morality; to bring back the soul within itself; to give a lively feeling of the dignity of his nature, of the loftiness of his origin and his destiny; to inspire him, by means of extraordinary examples, with confidence that the mind, aided by divine grace, can triumph over the animal passions, and make man lead an angelic life upon earth: these are benefits so signal, that a noble heart must show itself grateful and full of lively interest for the men who have given them to the world. As to the monasteries of the West, the benefits of their civilizing influence are so visible, that no man who loves humanity can regard them with animadversion; in fine, the military orders present us with an idea so noble, so poetical, and realize in so admirable a manner one of those golden dreams which cross the human mind in moments of enthusiasm, that they must certainly find respectful homage in every heart which beats at a noble and sublime spectacle. There yet remains a more difficult task, that of presenting at the tribunal of philosophy-that philosophy so indifferent in religious matters-the other religious communities which are not comprised in the sketch which I have just made. Judgments of great severity have been passed upon those institutions which I have now to speak of; but in such things justice cannot be prescriptive. Neither the applause of irreligious men, nor the revolutions which upset all that stand in their way, can prevent the truth being placed in its true light, and folly and crime being stigmatized with disgrace. The thirteenth century has just commenced; there appears a new kind of men, who, under different titles, denominations, and forms, profess a singular and extraordinary way of life. Some put on clothing of coarse cloth; they renounce all wealth and property; they condemn themselves to perpetual mendicity, spreading themselves over the country and the towns for the sake of gaining souls for Jesus Christ. Others bear on their dress the distinctive mark of the redemption of man, and undertake the mission of releasing from servitude the numberless captives who, from the misfortune of the times, have fallen into the hands of the Mussulmen. Some erect the cross in the midst of a people who eagerly follow them, and they institute a new devotion-a constant hymn of praise to Jesus and to Mary; at the same time they indefatigably preach the faith of the Crucified. Others go in search of all the miseries of man, bury themselves in hospitals, in all the asylums of misfortune, to succour and console. They all bear new standards; all show equal contempt for the world; they all form a portion separate from the rest of mankind; but they resemble neither the solitaries of the East, nor the sons of St. Bennet. The new monks arise not in the desert, but in the midst of society: their object is not to live shut up in monasteries, but to spread themselves over the fields and hamlets. to penetrate to the heart of the great masses of the population, and to make their voices heard both in the cottage of the shepherd and in the palace of the monarch. They increase on all sides in a prodigious manner. Italy, Germany. France, Spain, England, receive them; numerous convents arise as if b) enclhantment in the villages and towns; the Popes protect them and enrick them with many privileges; kings grant them the highest favors, and suppor PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 245 them in their enterprises; the people regard them with veneration, and listen to them with respectful docility. A religious movement appears on all sides; religious institutions, more or less resembling each other, arise like the branches from the same trunk. The observer, when he sees this immense and astonishing picture, asks himself, What are the causes of so extraordinary a phenomenon? whence this singular movement? what is its tendency? what will be its effects on society? When a fact of such high importance is realized all at once in many different countries, and lasts for centuries, it is a proof that there existed very powerful means to produce it. It is vain to be entirely forgetful of the views of Providence: no one can deny that such a fact must have had its root in the essence of things; consequently it is useless to declaim against the men and the institutions. Acknowledging this, the true philosopher will not lose his time in anathematizing the fact, but he will examine and analyze it. No'declamation or invectives against the monks can efface their history; they have existed for many centuries, and centuries do not retrace their steps. We will not inquire if there was here some extraordinary design of Providence, and we will lay aside the reflections which religion suggests to every true Catholic; we will confine ourselves to considering the religious institutions of modern times in a purely philosophical point of view; we can show that they were not only very conformable to the well-being of society, but also perfectly adapted to the situation in which it was placed; we can show that they displayed neither cunning, malice, nor vile self-interest; that their object was highly advantageous, and that they were at the same time the expression and the fulfilment of great social necessities. The question of its own accord assumes the position in which we have just regarded it; and it is strange that men have not acknowledged all the importance of the magnificent points of view which here present themselves. In order the better to clear up this important matter, I will enter upon an examination of the social condition of Europe at the time of which we speak. As soon as we take the first glance at this epoch, we observe that, in spite of the intellectual rudeness which one would imagine must have kept nations in abject silence, there was at the bottom of men's minds an anxiety which deeply moved and agitated them. These times are ignorant; but it is an ignorance which is conscious of itself and which longs for knowledge. There is felt a want of harmony in the relations and institutions of society; but that want is everywhere felt and acknowledged, and a continual agitation indicates that this harmony is anxiously desired and ardently sought for. I know not what singular character is stamped upon the nations of Europe, but we do not find there the symptoms of death; they are barbarous, ignorant, corrupt, any thing you please; but, as if they constantly heard a voice calling them to light, to civilization, to a new life, they incessantly labor to leave the fatal condition into which unhappy circumstances have plunged them. They never sleep in tranquillity amid the darkness; they never live without remorse amid the corruption of manners. The echo of virtue continually resounds in their ears; flashes of light appear in the darkness; a thousand efforts are made to advance a step in the career of civilization; a thousand times they are vain; but they are renewed as often as they are repulsed; the generous attempt is never abandoned; they fail a thousand times; but they never lose courage. Courage and ardour are never wanting. There is this remarkable difference between the nations of Europe, and those nations among whom the Christian religion has not yet penetrated, or from whose bosom it has been banished. Ancient Greece falls, never to rise again; the Republics of the shore of Asia disappear, and do not rise out of their ruins. The ancient civilization of Egypt is broken to pieces by the conquerors, and posterity has scarcely preserved a remembrance of them. Certainly none of the nations on the coast v2 246 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. of Africa can show us signs which reveal the ancient country of St. Cyprian, of Tertullian and St. Augustine. Still more; a considerable portion of Asia has preserved Christianity, but a Christianity separated fiom Rome; and this has been unable to establish or regenerate any thing. Political power has aided and protected it, but the nation remains feeble; it cannot stand erect; it is a dead body, incapable of advancing; it is not like Lazarus, who has just heard the all-powerful voice: "Lazarus, come forth; Lazare veniforas." This anxiety, this agitation, this extreme eagerness towards a greater and happier future, this desire for reformation in manners, for enlargement and correction in ideas, for amelioration in institutions-the distinctive characteristics of modern nations-made themselves felt in a fearful manner at the time to which we allude. I will say nothing of the military history of those times, which would furnish us with abundant proofs of our assertion; I will confine myself to facts which, owing to their religious and social character, have the greatest analogy with the subject which now occupies us. A formidable energy of mind, a great fund of activity, a simultaneous development of the most ardent passions, an enterprising spirit, a lively desire of independence, a decided inclination to employ violent means, an extraordinary zeal for proselytism, ignorance combined with a thirst for knowledge, even combined with enthusiasm and fanaticism for all that bears the name of science; a high esteem for the titles of nobility, and of illustrious blood, united with the spirit of democracy, and a profound respect for merit, wherever it may be found; a childlike candor, an excessive credulity, and, at the same time, the most obstinate indocility; a tenacious spirit of resistance, fearful stubbornness, corruption, and licentiousness of manners, allied with admiration for virtue; a taste for the most austere practices, combined with an inclination for the most extravagant habits and manners; such are the traits which history exhibits among these nations. So singular a mixture appears strange at first sight; and yet nothing was more natural. Things could not be otherwise: societies are formed under the'influence of certain principles, and of certain particular circumstances, which impart to them their genius, character, and countenance. It is the same with society as with individuals; education, instruction, temperament, and a thousand other physical and moral circumstances, concur in forming a collection of influences which produce qualities the most different, and sometimes the most contradictory. This concurrence of different causes was shown in a singular and extraordinary manner among the nations of Europe; it is on this account that we observe there the most extravagant and discordant effects. Let us recollect the history of those nations since the fall of the Roman empire to the end of the Crusades; never did an assemblage of nations present a combination of more varied elements, and a spectacle of greater events. The moral principles which preside over the' development of these nations were in direct opposition to their genius and situation. These principles were essentially pure, unchangeable as the God who had established them; radiant with light, because they emanated from the source of all light and life: the nations, on the contrary, were ignorant, rude, fluctuating, like the waves of the sea, and corrupted, as was to be expected of every thing which was the result of an impure mixture. Wherefore a terrible struggle took place between principles and facts; wherefore there were witnessed the most extraordinary contradictions, according as good and evil alternately preponderated. Never was the struggle between elements which could not remain at peace, more clearly seen; the genii of good and of evil seemed to descend into the arena, and to fight hand to hand. The nations of Europe were not in their infancy, for they were surrounded by old institutions. Full of the recollections of ancient civilization, they preserved various remains of it. They were themselves produced by the mixture of a hundred nations, differing in laws, customs, and manners. They were not PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 247 yet adult nations; as this denomination cannot be applied eith ir to individuals or to society before they have reached a certain development, from which the nations of Europe were still far removed. It is very difficult to find a word to express this social state; it was neither a state of civilization, nor that of barbarism; for a number of laws and institutions existed there, which certainly did not deserve the epithet of barbarous. If we call these nations semi-barbarous, perhaps we shall approach the truth. Words are of little importance, if we have a clear idea of the things. It cannot be denied that the European nations, owing to a long series of revolutions, and the extraordinary mixture of races, of ideas, and manners, of the conquerors with each other, and of the conquerors with the nations conquered, had a large portion of barbarism, and a fruitful germ of agitation and disorder. But the malignant influence of these elements was combated by the action of Christianity, which had obtained a decided preponderance over minds, and which, besides, was supported by powerful institutions. Christianity, to accomplish this difficult work, had the assistance of great material force. The Christian doctrines, which penetrated on all sides, tended, like a sweetening liquid, to soften and improve every thing; but, at every step, the mind comes into collision with the senses, morality with the passions, order with anarchy, charity with ferocity, and law with fact. Thence a struggle, which, although general to a certain extent in all times and countries, since it is founded on the nature of man, was then more rude, violent, and clamorous- The two most opposite principles, barbarism and Christianity, were then face to face in the same arena, with no one between them. Observe these nations with attention, read their history with reflection, and you will see that those two principles are constantly struggling, and constantly contending for influence and preponderance; thence the most strange situations, and the most singular contrasts. Study the character of the wars of that time, and you will hear the holiest maxims constantly proclaimed; legitimacy, law, reason, and justice are invoked; the tribunal of God is incessantly appealed to: this is the influence of Christianity. But, at the same time, you will be afflicted at the sight of numberless acts of violence, of cruelties, atrocities, pillages, rapines, murders, fires, and disasters without end: this is-barbarism. If you look at the Crusades, you will observe that grand ideas, vast plans, noble inspirations, social and political views of the highest importance, fermented in men's heads; that all hearts overflowed with noble and generous feelings, and that a holy enthusiasm, transporting men out of themselves, rendered them capable of heroic actions: this is the influence of Christianity. But, if you examine the execution, you will see disorder, improvidence, want of discipline in the armies, injuries, and acts of violence; you will seek in vain for concert and harmony among those who take part in the gigantic and perilous enterprise: there is barbarism. Youths, thirsting for. knowledge, crowd to the lectures of the famous masters, from the most distant countries; Italians, Germans, English, Spanish, and French are mingled and confounded around the chairs of Abelard, Peter Lombard, Albertus Magnus, and St. Thomas of Aquin; a powerful voice resounds in their ears, calling them to leave the shades of ignorance and raise themselves to the regions of science; the love of knowledge animates them; the longest journeys cannot stop them; the enthusiasm for illustrious masters is carried to an indescribable extent. behold the influence of Christianity; behold her constantly stirring and illuminating the mind of man, never allowing him to repose tranquilly in obscurity, and continually exciting him to new intellectual labors and researches after truth! But behold these same youths, who exhibit such noble dispositions, and inspire such legitimate and consoling hopes; are they not also those licentious, restless, and turbulent young men, giving way to the most deplorable acts of violence, continually fighting in the streets, and forming in the midst of great 248 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. cities a small republic, an unruly democracy, where there is much difficulty in maintaining law and good order? Behold here barbarism! It is good, it is perfectly conformable to the spirit of religion, that the guilty man who raises a repentant and humiliated heart to God, should manifest his feeling and the affliction of his soul by external acts; that he should labor to fortify his mind, and restrain his evil inclinations, by employing the rigors of gospel austerity against his flesh: all this is sovereignly reasonable, just, holy, and conformable to the maxims of the Christian religion, which thus ordains for the justification and sanctification of the sinner, to repair the injury done to the souls of others by the scandal of a bad life. But that penitents, half naked, should'wander about loaded with chains, carrying horror and alarm everywhere, as happened at this time, when we see ecclesiastical authority compelled to repress the abuse: this marks the spirit of rudeness and ferocity which always accompany the state of barbarism. Nothing is more true, noble, and salutary for society, than to imagine God always ready to defend innocence, to protect it against injustice and calumny, and to raise it above humiliation and disgrace, by restoring to it, sooner or later, the purity and lustre of which they have attempted to deprive it. This supposition is an effect of faith in Providence-that faith emanating from Christian ideas, which represent to us God as embracing the whole world in his view, reaching with his penetrating eye the deepest recesses of the heart, and not even excluding the meanest of his creatures from his paternal love. But who does not perceive the infinite distance which separates this pure faith from the trials by fire, water, and single combat? Who does not here discover rudeness confounding all things-the spirit of violence laboring to subject every thing to a rigorous law-attempting, in some measure, to oblige God himself to comply with our wants and caprices, in order to interpose the testimony of his solemn miracles, whenever it suits our pleasure or convenience to find out the truth? I introduce these contrasts here in order to awaken the recollections of those who have read history, and to enable me to establish, in a few words, the simple and general formula which sums up all those periods: " Barbarism tempered by religion; religion disfigured by barbarism." In the study of history we constantly encounter a serious obstacle, which renders it always difficult, and sometimes impossible, to understand it perfectly. We make the mistake of referring every thing to ourselves, and to the objects which surround us-a mistake which is excusable, no doubt, since it has its root in our own nature, but against which we must be carefully on our guard, if we wish to avoid deplorable errors. We imagine the men of other times to be like ourselves; without thinking of it, we communicate to them our own ideas, manners, inclinations, and even temperaments; and, after having fashioned men who exist only in our own imaginations, we desire and demand that the real men should act in the same manner as these imaginary men; and at the slightest discord between the historical facts and our unreasonable suppositions, we cry out that it is strange and monstrous, taxing with being strange and monstrous what was perfectly regular and ordinary according to the epoch. It is the same with respect to laws and institutions: when we do not find them according to the types which we have under our eyes, we declaim against the ignorance, iniquity, and cruelty of the men who have conceived and established them. If we wish to form an exact idea of an epoch, it is necessary to transport ourselves there-to make an effort of imagination, in order, as it were, to live and converse with its men; it is not enough to hear the recital of the events, it is necessary to witness them, to become one of the spectators, one of the actors, if possible; it is necessary to call forth generations from the romb, ind make them act under our eyes. I shall be told that this is very difficult. I grant it; but it is necessary, if we wish that our knowledge of history PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLTCITY. 249 should be something more than a mere notion of names and dates. It is quite sure that we do not know an individual well, unless acquainted with his ideas, character, and conduct. It is the same with a society: if we are ignorant by what doctrines it was guided, what was its manner of considering and feeling things, we shall see the events only superficially-we shall know the words of the law, but we shall not penetrate its spirit or genius; when contemplating an institution, we shall see only the external frame-work, without reaching the mechanism, or guessing the moving machinery. If we attempt to avoid these defects, it is certain that the study of history becomes the most difficult of all; but this knowledge has been wanting for a long time. The secrets of man and the mysteries of society are, at the same time, the most important subject which can be proposed to the human mind, and the most arduous, the most difficult, and the least accessible to the generality of intellects. The individual in the times to which we allude was not the individual of to-day; his ideas were very different, his manner of seeing and feeling was not ours, his soul was of quite another temper from our own; what is inconceivable to us, was perfectly natural to men of those times; they took pleasure in what is now repugnant to us. At the beginning of the thirteenth century, Europe had already experienced the powerful shock of the Crusades; the sciences began to germinate; the spirit of commerce was in some degree developed; the taste for industry made itself felt; and the inclination of men to enter into communication with other men, and of nations to mingle with other nations, was every day extended and increased. The feudal system, already shaken, was about to fall to pieces; the power of the commonalty rapidly increased; the spirit of enfranchisement showed itself everywhere; in fine, owing to the almost complete abolition of slavery, and to the change effected-by the Crusades in the condition of vassals and serfs, Europe was covered with a numerous population who knew not slavery, and who bore with difficulty the feudal yoke. Yet this population was still far from possessing all that is necessary to rise to the rank of free citizens. Modern democracy already offered itself to the view, with its great advantages, its numerous difficulties, its immense problems, which still embarrass and disconcert us, after so many centuries of trial and experience. The lords preserved in great measure their habits of barbarism and ferocity, by which they had been unfortunately distinguished at former periods; the royal power was far from having acquired that force and prestiqe necessary for ruling such opposite elements, and to raise itself in the midst of society as a symbol of respect for all interests-a centre of reunion for all forces, and a sublime personification of reason and justice. In the same century, wars began to assume a character more popular, and consequently more vast and important; the agitations of the people began to wear the aspect of political commotions. Already we discover something more than the ambition of emperors attempting to impose their yoke on Italy; we have no longer petty kings who contend for a crown or a province, or counts or barons who, followed by their serfs, fight with each other or with the neighboring municipalities, covering the land with blood and rapine. We observe in the movements of that period something more important and alarming. Numerous nations arise and crowd around a banner on which, instead of the ensigns of a baron or of a monarch, appears the name of a system of doctrines. No doubt, the lords take part in the struggle, and their power raises them still far above the crowd which surrounds and follows them; but the cause in question is not that of these men; they are accounted something in the problems of the times; but mankind looks beyond the horizon of castles. This agitation and movement, produced by the appearance of new religious and social doctrines, is the announcement and the beginning of that chain of revolutions which Europe has tc undergo. 32 250 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. The evil did not consist in the dispositibn of nations to carry out their ideas, and refuse to take as their only guide the interests and doctrines of a few tyrants. On the contrary, this was a great step gained in the path of civiliza. tion; men thus showed that. they felt and understood their own dignity better, that they took a more extended view, and had a better understanding of their own situation and interests. This progress was the natural result of the higher flight which was every day taken by the faculties of the mind. The Crusades had greatly contributed to this new movement; from that great epoch the different nations of Europe were accustomed no longer to fight for the possession of a small territory, or to gratify private ambition or revenge. The nations fought in support of a principle by laboring to avenge the outrage offered to the true religion; in a word, they became accustomed to be moved, to contend, to die, for an idea which, far from being limited to a small territory, embraced heaven and earth. Thus, we will observe in passing, that the popular movement, the movement in ideas, began in Spain much sooner than in the rest of Europe, because the war against the Moors had advanced the period of the Crusades for that country. The evil, I repeat it, was not in the interest which the people took in ideas, but in the imminent danger of seeing those nations, on account of their rudeness and ignorance, allow themselves to be abused and deceived by the first fanatic who came. At a moment when the movement was so vast, the fate of Europe depended on the direction which was about to be given to the universal activity: unless I am deceived, the twelfth and thirteenth centuries were the critical epochs, when, in the face of great probabilities on both sides, there was decided the great question of knowing whether Europe, in its twofold social and political relations, was to take advantage of the benefits of Christianity, or permit all the promise of a better future to be lost and annihilated. When we fix our eyes on this period, we find, in different parts of Europe, a certain germ and index of the greatest disasters; the most horrible doctrines arise among the masses who begin to be agitated; the most fearful disorders signalize the first step of these nations in the career of life. Before this, we have discovered only kings and lords, but now the people appear on the scene. Thus we see that some rays of light and heat have penetrated this shapeless mass. At this sight the heart is dilated and encouraged, presaging the new future which is reserved for humanity. But, at the same time, the observer is alarmed, for he is aware that this heat may produce excessive fermentation, engender corruption, and multiply impure insects in the field which promises soon to become an enchanting garden. The extravagances of the human mind at this time appear under so alarming an aspect, and with a turbulence of character so fearful, that apprehensions apparently the most exaggerated are supported by facts, and become terrible probabilities. Let me recall some of those facts which so vividly paint the condition of minds at that time; facts which besides are connected with the principal point which we are examining. At the beginning of the twelfth century, we find the famous Tancheme, or Tanquelin, teaching the maddest theories and committing the greatest crimes; yet at Antwerp, in Zealand, in the country of Utrecht, and in many other towns in the same countries, he draws after him a numerous crowd. This wretched man advanced that he was more worthy of supreme worship than Jesus Christ himself, "for," said he, "if Jesus Christ had received the Holy Spirit, he (Tancheme) had received the plenitude of that Holy Spirit." He added that the whole Church was comprised in his own person and in his disciples. The pontificate, episcopate, and priesthood were, according to him, mere chimeras. His instructions and discourses were particularly addressed to women; the result of his doctrines and proceedings was the most revolting corruption. Yet the fanaticism which was excited by this abominable PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 251 man went so far that the sick eagerly drank the water in which he had bathed, believing it to be the most salutary remedy for body and soul. Women thought themselves happy to have obtained the favors of the monster; mothers considered it an honor for their daughters to be selected as the victims of his profli. gacy, and husbands were offended when their wives were not stained with thi* disgrace. Tancheme, knowing all the ascendency which he was able to exert over minds, was not backward in making use of the fanaticism of his followers; one of the principal virtueswith which he labored to inspire them was liberality in favor of his own interest. One day when he was surrounded with a large concourse of people, he had a picture of the Virgin brought to him; touching it with his sacrilegious hand, he said that he took the Virgin as his wife. Then, turning toward the spectators, he added, that as he had contracted marriage with the Queen of Heaven, as they had just seen, it was their duty to make the wedding presents. He immediately placed two boxes, one on the right and the other on the left of the picture, to receive on one side the offerings of the men, and on the other those of the women; for the purpose of learning, as he said, which of the two sexes had the greater affection for him. This artifice, as low and gross as it was sacrilegious, seemed only calculated to excite the indignation of those who were present; yet the results corresponded with the expectations of the artful impostor. The women, always jealous of the affection of Tancheme, surpassed in liberality; in a perfect frenzy, they stripped themselves of their necklaces: golden rings, and most precious jewels.' When he felt himself strong enough, Tancheme did not content himself with preaching; he was desirous of surrounding himself with an armed troop, in order to give him in the eyes of the world a far different appearance from that of an apostle. Three thousand men accompanied him everywhere. Surrounded by this respectable escort, clothed in magnificent apparel, and preceded by his standard, he moved with all the pomp of a king. When he stopped to preach, the three thousand satellites stood armed around him with drawn swords. It is evident, the aggressive character of the heretical sects of succeeding ages was already traced out. Every one knows how numerous were the partisans of Eon. This unhappy man was excited by hearing the frequent repetition of the words: " Per eum qui judicaturus est vivos et mortuos:" and he became persuaded and he asserted, that he himself was the judge who was to judge the living and the dead. We are also aware of the troubles excited by the seditious speeches of Arnauld of Brescia, the iconoclastic fanaticism of Pierre de Bruis and Henri. If I did not fear to fatigue the attention of my readers, it would be easy for me to relate here the most revolting scenes which represent to the life the spirit of the sects of those times, and the unfortunate predisposition which led men's minds to novelty, to extravagant spectacles, and I know not what fatal giddiness, whereby they were precipitated into the most strange errors and the most deplorable excesses. At all events, I must say a few words of the Cathari, Vaudois, Paterins of Arras, Albigenses, and poor men of Lyons. These sects, besides the influence which they had on the times of which we speak and on the later events of European history, will be of great use in making us fathom more deeply the question now before us. From the first ages of the Church, the sect of the Manichees was remarkable for errors and extravagances. Under different names, with more or less of followers, and with doctrines more or less various, it continued from age to age until the eleventh century, when it excited disturbances in France. From that time, Heribert and Lisoy acquired an unhappy celebrity by their obstinacy and fanaticism. In the time of St. Bernard, the sects called apostolical were distinguished by their dislike to marriage; while, on the other hand, they gave themselves up to the basest and most.u 252 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. bridled licentiousness. Nevertheless, all these irregularities were favorably received by the ignorance or the corruption of the people. This is proved by the rapidity with which they gained the masses and spread like a pestilence wherevet they appeared. Besides the hypocrisy, which is common to all the sects, that of the Manichees imagined an artifice the most apt to seduce rude and ignorant people: they appeared with the most rigid austerity and the most miserable clothes. Before the year 1181, we see the Manichees bold enough to venture out of their conventicles and openly teach their doctrines in the light of day. They associated with the celebrated bandits called Cottereaux, and feared not to commit all sorts of excesses, as they had seduced some knights and had secured the protection of some seigneurs of the country of Toulouse; they succeeded in exciting a formidable insurrection, which could be repressed only by force of arms. Ail eye-witness, Stephen, Abbot of St. Genevieve, at that time sent to Toulouse by the king, describes to us in a few words the acts of violence committed by these sectaries: " I have seen on all sides," he says, " churches burnt and ruined to their foundations: I have seen the dwellings of men changed into the dens of beasts." About the same time, the Vaudois, or poor men of Lyons, became famous. This last name was given to them on account of their extreme poverty, their contempt for all riches, and the rags with which they were covered. Their shoes also gave them the name of Sabatathes. They were perverse imitators of another kind of poor, celebrated at that time, and who were distinguished by their virtues, and particularly by their spirit of humility and disinterestedness. These latter, who formed a kind of association, comprising priests and laymen, attracted the respect and esteem of real Christians, and obtained the Pope's permission to teach publicly. The disciples showed a profound contempt for Church authority; they afterwards entertained monstrous errors, and in the end became a sect in opposition to religion, injurious to good morals, and incompatible with public tranquillity. These errors, which were the germs of so many calamities and troubles, could not be extirpated; with time they became more and more rooted in various countries, and the progress of things was so fatal, that at the beginning of the thirteenth century the period of short-lived seditions and isolated troubles was already long gone by, the errors had already spread on a large scale, and appeared with formidable resources for the contest. Already the south of France, agitated by civil discord, and precipitated into a fearful war, was in a state of terrible conflict. In the political organization of that time, the throne had not strength enough to, exercise a controlling power, the lords had still the means of resisting kings and doing violence to the people. When a spirit of disobedience, agitation, and movement is spread throughout the masses, there is only one means of restraining them, that of religion; and this very ascendency of religious ideas was taken advantage of by the wicked and the fanatical; and to mislead the multitude they availed themselves of violent declamation, where religion and politics formed a confused mixture, and where the spirit of austerity and disinterestedness was the subject of hypocritical affectation. The new errors were no longer confined to subtile attacks on particular dogmas, they assailed the fundamental ideas of religion, penetrated to the sanctuary of the family, on the one side condemning marriage, and on the other promoting infamous abominations: in fine, the evil was not limited to countries which by a tardy and incomplete initiation into the doctrines of Christianity, or for any other reason, had not fully participated in the European movement. The arena principally chosen was the south; that is, the country where the human mind was developed in the most prompt and lively manner. In the midst of such a concourse of unfortunate circumstances, all attested and placed beyond a doubt by history, was not the future of Europe very dark PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 253 and tempestuous? Ideas and manners were in imminent danger of taking a wrong direction; the bands of authority, the ties of family, seemed ready to break asunder; the nations might be led away by fanaticism or superstition; Europe was in danger of being replunged into the chaos whence it had emerged with so much difficulty. At that time the Crescent shone in Spain, it reigned in Africa, it triumphed in Asia. Was Europe at such a moment to lose her religious unity, and see new errors penetrate everywhere, sowing schism in all countries, and with it discord and war? Were all the elements of- civilization and refinement created by Christianity to be dispersed and stricken with sterility for ever? Were the great nations formed under the influence of Catholicity, the laws and institutions impregnated with that divine religion, to be corrupted, falsified. and destroyed by changes in the ancient faith? In find, was the course of European civilization to be violently diverted, and were the nations who were already advancing towards a peaceful, prosperous, and glorious future, to be condemned to see their most flattering hopes dissipated in a moment, and miserably to retrograde towards barbarism? Such was then the vast problem placed before society; and I fear not to assert that the religious movement which at that time displayed itself in so extraordinary a manner, and the new religious institutions, so inconsiderately accused of folly and extravagance, were a powerful means employed by Providence to save religion and society. If the illustrious Spaniard, St. Dominic de Guzman, and the wonderful man of Assisi, did not occupy a place on our altars, there lo receive the veneration of the faithful for their eminent sanctity, they would deserve to have statues raised to them by the gratitude of society and humanity. But what! are our words an object of scandal to you, who have only read and considered history through the deceitful medium of Protestant and philosophical prejudices? Tell us, then, what you find reprehensible in these men, whose establishments have been the subject of your endless diatribes, as if they had been the greatest calamities of the human race? Their doctrines are those of the Gospel; they are the same doctrines, to the loftiness and sanctity whereof you have been compelled to render solemn homage, and their lives are pure, holy, heroic, and conformable in every thing to their teachings. Ask them what is the object they have in view; that of preaching the Catholic truth to all men, they will tell you; of making every effort, of exerting every energy to destroy error and reform morals; of inspiring nations with the respect which is due to all legitimate authorities, civil and ecclesiastical. That is to say, you will find among them a firm resolution to devote their lives to remedy the evils of Church and State: They do not content themselves with barren wishes; they are not satisfied with a few discourses and transitory efforts; they do not confine their plans to their mere personal sphere, but, extending their views to all countries and future times, they found institutions whereof the members may spread themselves over the whole surface of the world, and transmit to future generations the apostolical spirit which has inspired them with their grand ideas. The poverty to which they condemn themselves is extreme; the dress they wear is rude and miserable; but do you not see the profound reasons for this conduct? Remember that they propose to renew the gospel spirit, so much forgotten in their time; that they frequently happen to meet face to face the emissaries of the corrupt sects, who, endeavoring to imitate Christian humility, and affecting an absolute disinterestedness, make a parade of presenting themselves in public in the garb of beggars; remember, in fine, that they go to preach to semi-barbarous nations, and that to preserve them from the giddiness of error which has begun to take possession of their heads, words are not enough, even accompapanied by a regular and uniform conduct; extraordinary examples, a mode of life which bears with it the most powerful edification, and sanctity clothed W 254 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. with an exterior adapted to make a lively impression on the imagination, are required. The number of the new religious is very considerable; they increase without measure in all the countries where they are established; they are found, not only in the country and in the hamlets, but they penetrate into the midst of the most populous cities. Observe, that Europe is no longer composed of a collection of small towns and wretched cottages erected round feudal castles, and humbly obedient to the authority or the influence of a proud baron; Europe no longer consists of villages grouped round rich abbeys, listening with docility to the instructions of the monks, and receiving with gratitude the benefits conferred on them. A great number of vassals have already thrown off the yoke of their lords; powerful municipalities arise on all sides, and in their presence the feudal system is frequently compelled to humble itself in alarm. Towns become every day more populous-every day, from the effects of the emancipation which takes place in the country, they receive new families. Reviving industry and commerce display new means of subsistence, and excite an increase of population. It results from all this that religion and morality must act upon the nations of Europe on a larger scale; more general means, issuing from a common centre, and freed from ordinary fetters, are necessary to satisfy the new necessities of the time. Such are the religious institutions of the time of which we speak; this is the explanation of their astonishing number, of their numerous privileges, and of that remarkable regulation which places them under the immediate control of the Pope. Even the character which marked these institutions-a character in some degree democratic, not only because men of all classes are there united, but also because of the special organization of their government-was eminently calculated to give efficacy to their influence over a democracy, fierce, turbulent, and proud of its recent liberty, and consequently little disposed to sympathize with any thing which might have been presented to it under aristocratic or exclusive forms. This democracy found in these new religious institutions a certain ana. logy with its own existence and origin. These men come from the people, they live in constant communication with them, and, like them, they are poor and meanly clad; and as the people have their assemblies where they choose their municipal officers and bailiffs, so do the religious hold their chapters, where they name their priors and provincials. They are not anchorites living in remote deserts, nor monks sheltered in rich abbeys, nor clergy whose functions and duties are confined to any particular country. They are men without fixed abodes, and who are found sometimes in populous cities and sometimes in miserable hamlets-to-day in the midst of the old continent, to-morrow on a vessel which bears them to perilous missions in the remotest countries of the globe; sometimes they are seen in the palaces of kings, enlightening their councils, and taking part in the highest affairs of state; sometimes in the dwellings of obscure families, consoling them in misfortune, making up their quarrels, and giving them advice on their domestic affairs. These same men, who are covered with glory in the chairs of the universities, teach catechism to children in the humblest boroughs; illustrious orators who have preached in courts, before kings and great men, go to explain the Gospel in obscure villages. The people fnd them everywhere, meet them at every step, in joy and in sorrow; these men are constantly ready to take part in the happy festivities of a baptism which fills the house with joy, or to lament a.misfortune which has just covered it with mourning. We can imagine without difficulty the force and ascendency of such institutions. This influence on the minds of nations must have been incalculable; the new sects which tended to mislead the multitude by their pestilential doctrines, found themselves face to face with an adversary who completely con PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 255 quered them. They wished to seduce the simple by the ostentation of great austerity and wonderful disinterestedness; they desired to deceive the imagination, by striking it with the sight of exterior mortification, of poor and mean clothing. The new institutions united these qualities in an extraordinary manner. Thus the true doctrine had the same attributes which error had assumed. From among the classes of the people there come forth violent declaimers, who captivate the attention and take possession of the minds of the multitude by fiery eloquence. In all parts of Europe we meet with burning orators, pleading the cause of truth, who, well versed in the passions, ideas, and tastes of the multitude, know how to interest, move, and direct them, making use, in defence of religion, of what others attempt to avail themselves of in attacking her. They are found wheresoever they are wanted to combat the efforts of sects. Free from all worldly ties, and belonging to no particular church, province, or kingdom, they have all the means of passing rapidly from one place to another, and are found at the proper time wherever their presence is urgently required. The strength of association, known to the sectaries, and used by them with so much success, is found in a remarkable degree in these new religious institutions. The individual has no will of his own: a vow of perpetual obedierce has placed him at the disposal of another's will; and this latter is in his turn subject to a third; thus there is formed a chain, whereof the first link is in the hands of the Pope; the strength of association, and that of unity, are thus united in authority. There is all the motion, all the warmth of a democracy; all the vigor, all the promptitude of monarchy. It has been said that these institutions were a powerful support to the authority of the Popes; this is certain: we may even add, that if these institutions had not existed, the fatal schism of Luther would perhaps have taken place centuries earlier. But, on the other hand, we must allow that the establishment of them was not due to projects of the papacy; the Sovereign Pontiffs did not conceive the idea of them; isolated individuals, guided by superior inspiration, formed the design, traced out the plan, and submitting that plan to the judgment of the Holy See, asked for authority to realize their enterprise. Civil institutions, intended to consolidate and aggrandize the power of kings, emanate sometimes from monarchs themselves, sometimes from some of their ministers, who, identifying themselves with their views and interests, have formed and executed the idea of the throne. It is not thus with the power of the Popes; the support of new institutions contributes to sustain that power against the attacks of dissenting sects; but the idea of founding the institutions themselves comes neither from the Popes nor their ministers. -Unknown men suddenly arise among the people; nothing which has taken place affords reason to suspect them of having any previous understanding with Rome; their entire lives attest that they have acted by virtue of inspiration, communicated to themselves, an inspiration which does not allow them any repose, until they have executed what was prescribed to them. There are not, there cannot be, any private designs of Rome; ambition has no share. From this, all sensible men should draw one of these two consequences: either the appearance of these new institutions-was the work of God, who was desirous of saving His Church by sustaining her against new attacks, and protecting the authority of the Roman Pontiff; or, Catholicity herself contained within her breast a saving instinct which led her to create these institutions, which were required to enable her to come triumphant out of the fearful crisis in which she was engaged. To Catholics, these two propositions are identical: in both we see only the fulfilment of the promise, "On this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall never prevail against her." Philosophers who do not regard things by the light of faith, in order to explain this phenomenon, may make use of what terms they 256 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. please; but they will be compelled to acknowledge that wonderful wisdom and, the highest degree of foresight appear at the bottom of these facts. If they persist in not acknowledging the finger of God, and in seeing in the course of events only the fruit of well-concerted plans, or the result of organization combined with art, at least they cannot refuse a sort of homage to these plans and that organization. Indeed, as they confess that the power of the Roman Pontiff, considered in relations merely philosophical, is the most wonderful of all the powers which have appeared on earth, is it not evident that the society called the Catholic Church shows in her conduct, in the spirit of life which animates her, and in the instinct which makes her resist her greatest enemies, the most incomprehensible combination of phenomena which have ever been witnessed in society? It is of little importance to the truth, whether you call this instinct, mystery, spirit, or whatever name you please. Catholicity defies all societies, all sects, and all schools, to realize what she has realized, to triumph over what she has triumphed over, and to pass through, without perishing, the crises through which she has passed. A few examples, where the work of God was more or less imitated, may be alleged against us; but the magicians of Egypt, placed in the presence of Moses, came to an end of their artifices; the envoy of God performed wonders which they could not; and they were compelled to exclaim, " The finger of God is here-the finger of God is here!" CHAPTER XLIV. THE RELIGIOUS ORDERS FOR THE REDEMPTION OF CAPTIVES. WHEN viewing the religious institutions produced by the Church during the thirteenth century, we did not pause to consider one among them, which, to the merit of participating in the glory of the others, adds a peculiar character of beauty and sublimity, and which is inexpressibly worthy of our attention: I speak of that institution, the object of which was to redeem captives from the hands of the Infidels. If I make use of this general designation, it is because I do not intend to enter into a particular examination of the various branches which compose it. I consider the unity of the object, and, on account of that unity, I attribute unity to the institution itself. Thanks to the happy change which has taken place in the circumstances which occasioned its foundation, we can now scarcely estimate the institution at its just value, and appreciate in a proper manner the beneficent influence and the holy enthusiasm which,it must have produced in all Christian countries. In consequence of the long wars with the Infidels, a very great number of the faithful groaned in fetters, deprived of their liberty and country, and often in danger of apostatizing from the faith of their fathers. The Moors still occupied a considerable part of Spain; they reigned exclusively on the coasts of Africa, and proudly triumphed in the East, where the Crusaders had been vanquished. The Infidels thus held the south of Europe closely confined, and were constantly able to seize favorable moments, and procure multitudes of Christian slaves. The revolutions and disorders of those times continually offered favorable opportunities; both hatred and cupidity urged them to gratify their revenge on the Christians taken unawares. We may be sure that this was one of the severest scourges which the human race had to endure at that time in Europe. If the word charity was to be any thing more than a mere name, if the nations of Europe were not to allow their bonds of fraternity and the ties which connected their common interests to be destroyed, there was an urgent necessity for them te?ome to an understanding, in order to remedy this evil. The veteran who, instead of a reward for his long services to religion and his country, had found PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY.'57 slavery in the depths of a dungeon; the merchant who, ploughing the seas to carry provisions to. the Christian armies, had fallen into the power of an implacable enemy, and paid by heavy chains for the boldness of his enterprise; the timid virgin who, playing upon the sea-shore, had been perfidiously carried away by the merciless pirates, like a dove borne away by a hawk:-all these unfortunate beings had undoubtedly some right to be looked at with compassion by their brethren in Europe, and to have an effort made to restore them to liberty. How shall this charitable end be attained? Can means be employed to accomplish an enterprise which cannot be confided either to force or stratagem? Nothing is more fertile in resources than Catholicity. Whatever may be the necessity which presents itself, she immediately finds proper means of succor and remedy, if allowed to act with freedom. The remonstrances and negotiations of Christian princes could.obtain nothing in favor of the captives; new wars undertaken for this purpose only served to increase the public calamitiesthey deteriorated the lot of those who groaned in slavery, and perhaps increased their number, by sending them fresh companions in misfortune; pecuniary means, without a central point of action and-direction, produced but little fruit, and were lost in the hands of agents. What resource, then, does there remain? The powerful resource which is always found in the hands of the Catholic religion-the secret whereby she accomplishes her greatest enterprises, viz. charity. But how ought this charity to act? In the same way as all the virtues of Catholicity. This divine religion, which has come down from the loftiest regions, and constantly raises the human mind to sublime meditations, presents at the same time a singular characteristic, whereby she is distinguished from all the schools and sects who have attempted to imitate her. In spite of the spirit of abstraction, if I may so speak, which holds her continually detached from earthly things, she has nothing vague, unsubstantial, or merely theoretical. With her, all is speculative and practical, sublime and simple; she adapts and accommodates herself to all that is compatible with the truth of her dogmas and the severity of her maxims. While her eyes are fixed on heaven, she forgets not that she is on earth, and that she has to deal with mortal men, subject to miseries and calamities. With one hand she shows them eternity, with the other she succors their misfortunes, solaces their pains, and dries up their tears. She does not.content herself with barren words; the love of our neighbor is to her nothing, if that love does not manifest itself in giving bread to him who is hungry, drink to him who is thirsty; in clothing the naked, consoling the afflicted, visiting the sick, solacing the prisoner, and redeeming the captive. To make use of an expression of this age, I will say that religion is eminently positive. Wherefore she labors to realize her ideas by means of beneficent and fruitful institutions, thereby distinguishing herself from human philosophy, the pompous language and gigantic projects of which form so miserable a contrast with the littleness and nothingness of its works. Religion speaks little, but she meditates and executes as the worthy daughter of that infinite Being who, although absorbed in the contemplation of an ocean of light, His own essence and His impenetrable nature, has not the less created the universe the object of our admiration, and ceases not to preserve it with ineffable goodness, while governing it with incomprehensible wisdom. It was necessary to go to the succor of the unhappy captives; assuredly, therefore, we should applaud the idea of a vast association, which, extending over all the countries of Europe, and placing itself in connection with all the Christians who would give alms in favor of so holy a work, would have in its service a certain number of individuals always ready to traverse the seas, and resolved to brave slavery and death for the redemption of their brethren. Numerous means would be thus combined, and the good employment of the funds 33 w2 ;258 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. would be secured. There was a certainty that the negotiations for the redemption of captives would be conducted by men of zeal and experience; in a word, such an association would completely fulfil its object; and when it was established, the Christians might hope for the most prompt and efficacious succor. Now, this was precisely the idea realized in the foundation of the religious orders for the redemption of captives. The religious who embraced these orders bound themselves by vow to the accomplishment of this work of charity. Free from the embarrassments of family relations and worldly interests, they could devote themselves to their task with all the ardor of their zeal. Long voyages, the perils of the sea, the danger of unhealthy climates, or the ferocity of the Infidels-nothing stopped them. In their dress, in the prayers of their institution, they found a constant remembrance of the vow which they had taken in the Divine presence. Neither repose, comfort, nor even their very lives, any longer belong to them; all are become the property of the unhappy captives, who groan in the dungeons or wear heavy chains in presence of their masters, on the other side of the Mediterranean. The families of the' unhappy victims, fixing their eyes on the religious, required of him the accomplishment of his promise; their groans and lamentations continually urge him to find means, and to expose his life, if necessary, to restore the father to the son, the son to the father, the husband to the wife, the innocent young girl to her desolate mother. From the earliest ages of Christianity we see great zeal displayed for the redemption of captives, which has always been preserved, and the inspiration of which from that time has called forth the greatest sacrifices. The seventeenth chapter of this work, and the notes attached to it, have incontestably proved this truth; and it is not necessary that I should stay to confirm it here. Yet I will not lose the opportunity of observing that the Church, in the present case, as in all circumstances, has adopted her constant rule, viz. to realize her ideas by means of institutions. If you observe her conduct attentively, you will find that she begins by teaching and highly extolling a virtue; then she mildly persuades men to put it in practice; the practice extends and gains strength, and what was merely a good work becomes for some a work of obligation; what was a simple wise act is converted into a strict duty for some select men. At all times has the Church been engaged in the redemption of captives; at all times some Christians of heroic charity have stripped themselves of their property, of their liberty, to accomplish this work of mercy; but this care was still left to the discretion of the faithful, and no bodies of men existed to represent this charitable idea. New necessities arise; the. ordinary means do not suffice; it is necessary that aid should be collected with promptitude, and employed with discernment; charity, as it were, requires an arm always ready to execute her orders; a permanent institution becomes necessary; the institution appears, and the want is satisfied. We are so accustomed to see the beautiful and the sublime in the work of religion, that we scarcely observe the greatest prodigies there, in the same way as, while profiting by the benefits of nature, we look upon her most wonderful works and productions with an eye of indifference. The different religious institutions which, under various forms, have appeared since the beginning of Christianity, are worthy of exciting in the highest degree the astonishment of the philosopher and the Christian; but I doubt whether it be possible to find in the whole history of these institutions any thing more beautiful, interesting, and touching, than the picture of the orders for the redemption of captives. Does there exist a more admirable symbol of religion protecting the unfortunate? Which is the most sublime emblem of the redemption consummated on Calvary and extending itself to earthly captivity? Is it not the celebrated vision which pr.eded the establishment of the holy institutes of Mercy and the Trinity? PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 259 Some will say that these apparitions were only chimeras and mere illusions Happy are those illusions, we will reply, which produce the consolation of the human race! However this may be, we will here recall these visions, braving, if necessary, the smiles of the incredulous. If they have preserved in their hearts any generous feelings, they will be compelled to allow that if these visions appear to them devoid of all historical truth, there is at least in the sublime sacrifice which is made by the man who devotes himself to slavery for the ransom of his brethren, a lofty poetry, a sincere love of the human race, an ardent desire to succor them, and an heroic disinterestedness. A doctor of the University of Paris, known by his virtues and his wisdom, had just been raised to the priesthood, and celebrated for the first time the holy sacrifice of the altar. In consideration of these exalted favors of the Most High, he redoubles his ardor, he excites his faith, and endeavors to offer to the Lamb without spot, with all the recollection, purity, and fervor of which he is capable, his heart inundated with favors and inflamed by charity. He knows not how to manifest to God his profound gratitude for so great a benefit;'his lively desire is to be able to prove to Him in some way his gratitude and his love. He who had said, "What you have done to one of my little children you have done to myself," immediately showed him a way to exhibit the fire of his charity. The vision begins: the priest sees an angel whose dress is white as snow and as brilliant as light; the angel wears on his breast a red and blue cross; at his sides are two captives, the one a Christian, the other a Moor; he places his hands over the heads of each. At this sight, the priest, ravished into ecstasy, understands that God calls him to the holy work of the redemption of captives; but before going any further, he retires into solitude. and devotes himself for three years to prayer and penance, humbly begging of the Lord that He would make known to him His sovereign will. In the desert he met with a pious hermit; the two solitaries aid each other by their prayers and examples. One day, when they were absorbed in pious communication by the side of a fountain, a stag suddenly appears to them bearing on his horns the mysterious cross of two colors. The priest relates to his astonished companion the first vision which he has had; both redouble their prayers and penances; both receive the celestial admonition for the third time. Then, unwilling any longer to defer the accomplishment of the Divine pleasure, they hasten to Rome, and ask of the Sovereign Pontiff his counsels and permission. The Pope, who at the same time had had a similar vision, joyfully accedes to the request of the two pious solitaries; the order of the Most Holy Trinity for the Redemption of Captives is thus established. The priest was called John of Matha; the hermit, Felix of Valois. They apply with ardent zeal to their work of charity; after having dried up the tears of numbers of unhappy beings, they now receive in heaven the reward of their labors. The Church, wishing to celebrate their memories, has placed them on her altars. The foundation of the order of Mercy had a similar origin. St. Peter Nolasco, having spent all he possessed in the redemption of captives, had sought in vain for new resources to continue his pious undertaking. He had set himself to pray, in order to strengthen himself in his holy resolution of selling his own liberty, or remaining himself a captive in the place of some of his brethren. During his prayer the Blessed Virgin appeared to him; she gave him to understand how pleasing the foundation of an order for the redemption of captives would be to herself and het Divine Son. The saint, after consulting the King of Aragon and St. Raymond of Penafort, proceeded to the establish.. ment of the order. He converted into a vow, not only for himself but for all those who embraced the institute, the holy desire which he had previously had to devote himself to slavery for the ransom of his brethren. I repeat what I have already said: in whatever manner you judge of these 20 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITI CATHOLICITY. apparitions, and if even you attempt to lay them aside altogether as mere illu. sions, it is not the less proved that the Catholic religion has labored with immense power to relieve a great misfortune, and that no one can call in question the utility of the holy institution in which the heroism of charity is so wonderfully personified. Indeed, supposing that the founder, the dupe of illusions, took for a revelation from heaven what was only the inspiration of ardent zeal, do not the benefits lavished on the unhappy captives remain the same? W( hear much of illusions; but certain it is that these illusions produced a reality When St. Peter Armengol, wanting all resources to deliver some unfortunates, remained as a hostage in their place, and when the day of ransom had expired, resigned himself to be hung because the money had not arrived from Europe, the illusions certainly did not remain sterile. What reality could produce greater prodigies of zeal and heroism? Long ago have the things of religion been condemned as illusions and madness; from the earliest times of Christianity the mystery of the cross was treated as folly; but we do not see that this prevented the pretended folly from changing the face of the world. CHAPTER XLV. THE UNIVERSAL PROGRESS OF CIVILIZATION IMPEDED BY PROTESTANTrSM. IN the rapid sketch which I have just given, my intention has not been to write the history of the religious orders; this did not form part of my design. I am satisfied with having offered a series of remarks which, by showing the importance of these institutions, were calculated to vindicate Catholicity from the accusations made against her on account of the protection which she has at all times afforded them. How could a comparison be made between Catholicity and Protestantism in their relations with the civilization of Europe, without devoting a few pages to the examination of the influence which these institutions have exercised on civilization? Now, if it is once shown that this influence was salutary, Protestantism, which has persecuted and calumniated these religious institutions with so much hatred and rancor, remains convicted of having done violence to the history of our civilization, of having mistaken its spirit, and still more of having aimed a blow at the legitimate development of that civilization itself. These reflections naturally lead me to point out another fault which Protestantism has committed. When breaking the unity of European civilization, it introduced discord into the bosom of that civilization, and weakened the physical and moral action which it exercised on the rest of the world. Europe was apparently destined to civilize the whole world. The superiority of her intelligence, the preponderance of her strength, the superabundance of her population. her enterprising and valiant character, her transports of generosity and heroism, her communicating and propagating spirit, seemed to call her to diffuse her ideas, feelings, laws, manners, and institutions to the four quarters of the universe. How does it happen that she. has not realized this destiny? How does it happen that barbarism is still found at her gates, and that Islamism still maintains itself in one of the finest climates and countries of Europe? Asia, with her want of moving power, weakness, despotism, and degradation of women; Asia, with all the disgraces of humanity, lies under our eyes; and scarcely have we done any thing which gives reason to hope that she will emerge from her degraded state. Asia Minor, the coasts of Palestine, Egypt, and the whole of Africa, are before us in a deplorable condition-a degradation which excites pity, and forms a melancholy contrast with the great recollections of history. America, after four centuries of incessant communication with us, PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 261 is still so much behindhand that a great part of her intellectual powers and the resources with which nature has furnished her, remain until this day to be imroved. How does it happen that Europe, full of life, rich in means of all kinds, overflowing with vigor and energy, has remained within the narrow limits in which she still is? If we pay deep attention to this melancholy phenomenon, a phenomenon with which it is very strange that the philosophy of history has not occupied itself, we shall find the cause. The entire cause thereof is the want of unity; her external action has been without concert, and consequently without efficacy. Men constantly vaunt the utility of association; they point out how necessary it is to obtain grand results, and they do not dream that because this principle applies to nations as well as to individuals, nations, like individuals, cannot accomplish great works, without conforming to this general law. When an assemblage of nations of the same origin, and subject for many ages to the same influence, have reached the development of their civilization under the guidance and control of a common idea, among them association becomes a real necessity; they form a family of brothers; now, among brothers, division and discord have worse results than among strangers. I do not pretend to say that the nations of Europe could have attained to so perfect a concord, that perpetual peace would have been established among them, and that perfect harmony would have eventually presided over all their undertakings with respect to the other countries of the globe; but without giving way to beautiful illusions, the reality whereof is beyond the bounds of possibility, we may nevertheless, and without hazard of contradiction, say, that, in spite of particular differences between nation and nation, in spite of the greater or less degree of opposition between external and internal interests, Europe could have kept and perpetuated in her own breast a civilizing idea which, raising itself above all the misery and littleness of human passions, would have placed her in a condition to acquire a greater ascendency and a stronger and more useful influence over the other nations of the world. Amid the interminable series of wars and calamities which afflicted Europe during the fluctuations of the barbarous nations, this unity of thought existed; and it was owing to it that order in the end came out of confusion, and that light conquered darkness. In the long struggle of Christianity against Islamism, whether in Europe, Asia, or Africa, this same unity of thought enabled Christian civilization to triumph, in spite of the rivalries of kings and the excesses of the people. While this unity existed, Europe preserved a transforming power which made all that it touched become European sooner or later. The heart is grieved at the sight of the disastrous event which broke this precious unity, by diverting the course of our civilization and destroying its fertilizing power. One can hardly observe without pain, not to say without anger, that the appearance of Protestantism was exactly coincident with the critical moment when the nations of Europe, about at length to reap the fruits of long ages of continued labor and unheard-of efforts, appeared to the world full of vigor, energy, and splendor. Putting forth gigantic strength, they discovered new worlds, and placed one hand on the East and the other on the West. Vasco de Gama had doubled the Cape of Good Hope, he had showed the way to the East Indies, and opened communication with unknown nations. Christopher Columbus, with the fleet of Isabella, ploughed the Western seas, discovered a new world, and planted the standard of Castile in unheard-of lands. Ferdinand Cortez, at the head of a handful of brave men, penetrated to the heart of the new continent, and took possession of its capital; his arms, which the natives had not yet seen, made him appear like a God launching his lightnings. Europe everywhere displayed extreme activity; a spirit of enterprise was developed in all hearts; the hour had come when the nations of Europe were about to see open before them a new horizon of power and grandeur, the limits 262 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. whereof were invisible to the eye. Magellan discovered the strait which united the east and west; and Sebastian d'Elcano, returning to the Spanish coasts, after having made the tour of the world, seemed to be the sublime personification of European civilization taking possession of the universe. At one extremity of Europe, the crescent still shows itself powerful and threatening, like a dark figure appearing in the corner of a splendid picture: but fear nothing; its armies have been driven from Granada, the Christian host is encamped on the coast of Africa, the standard of Castile floats on the walls of Oran, and in the heart of Spain grows up in silence the wonderful child, who, when he has but just laid aside the playthings of his age, will frustrate the last efforts of the Moors of that country by the triumphs of Alpujarres, and shortly after will break the Mussulman power for ever on the waves of Lepanto. The development of mind kept pace with the increase of power. Erasmus examined all the sources of knowledge, astonished the world by his talents and his learning, and spread his fame in triumph from one end of Europe to the other. The distinguished Spaniard, Louis Vives, rivalled the savant of Iotterdam, and undertook nothing less than to regenerate the sciences, and give a new direction to the human mind. In Italy, the schools of philosophy were in a state of fermentation, and they seized with avidity the new lights brought from Constantinople. In the same country, the genius of Dante and Petrarch was continued in their illustrious successors; the land of Tasso resounded with his accents like the nightingale announcing the coming of the dawn; while Spain, intoxicated with her triumphs, and transported'with pride at the sight of her conquests, sang like a soldier who, after victory, reposes on a heap of trophies. What could resist such superiority, such brilliant display, such great power? Europe, already secure against all her enemies, enjoying a prosperity which must every day increase, put in possession of laws and institutions better than any which had before been seen, and whereof the completion and perfection could not fail to come with the slow progress of time: Europe,. we say, in a condition so prosperous, replete with noble hopes, was about to commence the work of civilizing the world. Even the discoveries which were every day made, indicated that the happy moment had arrived. Fleets transported, together with warriors, apostolic missionaries, whose hands were about to scatter in the new countries the precious seed, whence, in the progress of time, was to grow up the tree under whose shadow new nations were to find shelter. Thus was the noble work begun, which, favored by Providence, was about to civilize America, Africa, and Asia. But the voice of the apostate who was about to cast discord into the bosoms of fraternal nations already resounded in the heart of Germany. The dispute begins, minds are excited, the irritation reaches its height, an appeal is made to arms, blood flows in torrents, and the man who had been commisioned by hell to scatter this cloud of calamities over the earth, contemplating before his death the dreadful fruit of his labors, can insult the sorrows of the human race with a cruel and impudent smile. Such do we figure to ourselves the genius of evil leaving his dark abode and his throne in the midst of horrors. He suddenly appears on the face of the globe, his hand sheds desolation and tears on all sides; he casts a look over the devastation which he has made, and then buries himself in eternal darkness. By extending itself over Europe, the schism of Luther weakened in a deplorable manner the action of Europeans on the other nations of the world; the flattering hopes which had been conceived were dissipated in a moment, and became no more than a golden dream. Henceforth, the largest part of our intellectual, moral, and physical powers was condemned to be employed and sadly wasted in a struggle which armed brethren against brethren. The nations which had preserved Catholicity were compelled to concentrate all their resources, PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 263 power, and energy, in order to make head against the impious attacks which the new sectaries made upon them by the press or by force of arms. The nations among whom the contagion of the new errors had been propagated were thrown into a sort of giddiness; they had no other enemies but the Catholics, and they considered only one enterprise worthy of their efforts-the degradation and destruction of the Roman See. Their thoughts no longer tended towards the invention of means for improving the lot of the human race; the immense field which had been thrown open to noble ambition by the recent discoveries, no longer merited attention; for them there was only one holy work-that of destroying the authority of the Roman Pontiff. This condition of men's minds struck with sterility the ascendency over nations recently discovered or conquered, which naturally belonged to Europeans. When the nations of Europe simultaneously approached new regions, they no longer met as brothers or generous rivals, stimulated by noble ambition; they were exasperated and implacable enemies, men who differed in religion, and who fought battles against each other as bloody as those which had formerly been witnessed between the Christians and the Moors. The name of the Christian religion, which had been the symbol of peace for so many agesa name which on the eve of battle was able to compel adversaries to lay aside their hatred, and embrace like brothers, instead of tearing each other in pieces like lions; a name which had served as an ensign to secure their triumph over Mohammedan legions: this name, now disfigured by sacrilegious hands, became a type of discord; and after Europe had been covered with blood and mourning, the scandal was transported to the nations of the New World. These simple and confiding nations were stricken with stupefaction on seeing the miseries, the spirit of division, hatred, and revenge which reigned among the same men upon whom they had just looked as demigods. From that time forward, the forces of Europe were not united in any of those great enterprises which had shed so much glory on previous ages. The Catholic missionary, watering the Indian or American forests with his sweat and blood, could reckon on the assistance of the nation to which he belonged, if that nation remained Catholic; but he could not hope that all Europe, uniting in the work of God, would come to sustain the distant missions with her resources; he knew, on the contrary, that a great many Europeans would calumniate and insult him, and use all imaginable means to prevent the seed of the gospel from taking root on the new soil, and increasing the power of the Popes, by adding to the renown of the Catholic Church. There was a time when the prbfanations of the Mussulmen in Jerusalem, and the injuries inflicted on the pilgrims who visited the Holy Sepulchre, were sufficient to arouse the indignation of all Christian nations. They all uttered the cry, To arms! and in crowds they followed the monk who led them to avenge the outrages against religion and the pious pilgrims. After the heresy of Luther, all was changed: the death of a missionary sacrificed in a. foreign land, his torments and martyrdom, sublime scenes in which the zeal and charity of the first ages of the Church reappeared with all their energy: all this was devoted to contempt and ridicule by men who called themselves Christiansthe unworthy posterity of the heroes whose blood had flowed under the walls of Jerusalem. In order to conceive in its full extent the evil caused by Protestantism il this respect, let us imagine for a moment that Protestantism had not appeared; and in this hypothesis, let us make a few reflections on the probable course of events. In the first place, all the strength, genius, and resources which Spain employed to make head in the religious wars excited on the continent, would have been able to exert themselves in the New World. The same would have been the case with France the Low Countries, and England. These nations, 264 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. although divided, have been able to furnish brilliant and glorious pages in his. tory; if their action on the new countries had been united and concentrated, would they not have exerted a vigor and energy which would have been irresistible? Imagine all the ports from the Baltic to the Adriatic sending their missionaries to the East and to the West, as did France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy; imagine all the great cities of Europe as so many centres where means for this great object are collected; imagine all the missionaries guided by the same views, under the influence of the same thought, and burning with the same zeal for the propagation of the same faith; wherever they meet, they meet as brothers, and co-operate in the common cause; all are under the same authority: do you not imagine that you see the Christian religion exerting herself on an immense scale, and everywhere gaining the most signal triumphs? The vessel which bears the apostolic men to distant regions may fearlessly unfurl her sails; when she discovers the flag of another country on the horizon, she is under no apprehension of meeting with enemies; she is sure of finding friends and brothers wherever there are Europeans. The Catholic missions, in spite of the obstacles which have been opposed to them by the turbulent spirit of Protestantism, have accomplished the most difficult enterprises, and realized prodigies which form a brilliant page in modern history; but how much nobler would have been their results, if Italy, Spain, Portugal, and France had been supported by the whole of Germany, the United Provinces, England, and other northern nations? This association was natural, and must have been realized, had not the schism of Luther destroyed it. It may be observed, moreover, that this fatal event not only placed an obstacle in the way of universal association, but hindered the Catholic nations themselves from devoting the greatest part of their resources to the great work of converting and regenerating the world: they were compelled to remain continually under arms, on account of religious wars and civil discords. At this epoch the religious orders were apparently called to be the arm of religion; by their means religion, consolidated in Europe and satisfied with the social regeneration which she had just worked, would have extended her action to the infidel nations. When we glance over the course of events during the earliest ages of the Church, and compare them with those of-modern times, we clearly see that some powerful cause must have interfered in modern times to oppose the propagation of the faith. Christianity appears, and she extends herself immediately with rapidity, without any aid on the part of men, and in spite of all the efforts of princes, sages, priests, the passions, and of all the stratagems of hell. She is but of yesterday, and already she is powerful, and prevails in all parts of the empire; nations differing in language and manners, nations of various degrees of civilization, abandon the worship of their false gods, and embrace the religion of Jesus Christ. The barbarians themselves, as intractable and indomitable as wild horses, listen to the missionaries who are sent to them, and bow their heads; in the midst of conquest and victory, they are seen to embrace the religion of those whom they have just conquered. Christianity in modern times has been in possession of the exclusive empire of Europe; and yet she has not been able to succeed in introducing herself again on the coasts of Africa and Asia, which lie under her eye. It is true, that the greatest part of America is become Christian; but observe, that the nations of those countries have been conquered; there the conquering nations have established those governments which have lasted for ages; the European nations have inundated the New World with their soldiers and colonies, so that a considerable portion of America is a kind of importation from Europe; consequently, the religious transformation of that country does not resemble that which took place in the early ages of the Church. Turn. towards the West, where European arms have PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 265 not obtained a decided preponderance; see what takes place there: the nations are still under the yoke of false religions. Christianity has not been able to enlighten them; although the Catholic missions have obtained the means of funding a few establishments more or less considerable, the precious seed has not been able to take sufficient root in the soil, in order to bear the fruits which ardent.charity hoped for, anl heroic zeal labored to produce. From time to time, the rays of divine light have penetrated to the heart of the great empires of Japan and China; at certain moments flattering hopes might be conceived; but these hopes have been dissipated, these rays of light have disappeared like a brilliant meteor amidst the darkness of midnight. What is the cause of this impotence? whence comes it that the fertilizing power, after having been so great in the first ages, had proved so vain in the last? Let us not examine the profound secrets of Providence, or seek to inquire into the incomprehensible mysteries of the Divine ways; but as far as it is given to a feeble spirit to learn the truth by the evidences contained in the history of the Church, as far as it is allowed us to carry our conjectures on the designs of the Most High, according to the indications which the Lord himself has been pleased to communicate to us, let us hazard an opinion on the facts: although dependent on a superior order, they yet have an ordinary course, which is regulated by God himself. The apostle St. Paul says that faith comes from hearing. He asks, how it is possible to hear, if there is no one who preaches, and how can there be preaching, if there is no one who sends? Hence, we must conclude that missions are necessary for the conversion of nations, since God has not thought fit by constant miracles to send legions of angels from heaven to teach the nations who are deprived of the light of the earth. Having laid down this principle, I will say that what was required for the conversion of infidel nations was the organization of missions on a large scale. There were required missions which, by the abundance of their resources and the number of their laborers, might be in proportion to the greatness of the object. Observe that the distances are immense, that the nations to whom the divine word is to be announced are dispersed in many countries, and live under the influence of laws, prejudices, and climates the most opposite to the spirit of the Gospel. To make head against such vast wants, and surmount such great difficulties, there was required a perfect inundation of missionaries; without whom the result would remain doubtful, the existence of religious establishments very precarious, and the conversion of great nations little probable, unless Providence interfered by one of those prodigies which change the face of the world in an instant. Now Providence does not renew these prodigies every moment; sometimes he does not even accord them to the most ardent supplications of the Saints. In order to form a complete idea of what took place in the latter ages, let us pay attention to what exists. What is wanting to infidel nations? What is the incessant cry of the zealous men who devote themselves to the propagation of the Gospel? Do we not constantly hear lamentations on the small number of laborers, and on the scanty resources which are devoted to the subsistence of the missionaries? Is not this penury of resources the cause of the associations now formed among the Catholics of Europe? The organization of missions on a large scale would have been realized if Protestantism had not come to prevent it. The nations of Europe, the privileged children of Providence, had the obligation and showed a decided will to procure for the other nations of the world, by all the means in their power, a participation in the benefits of the faith. Unhappily this faith was weakened in Europe, it was given up to the caprices of human reason, and henceforth what had before been of easy execution became impossible. Providence, which had permitted the deplorable disaster of the schism, permits also to be deferred to a 34 X 266 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. more remote period the happy day when the benighted nations shall enter in great numbers into the fold of the Church. But perhaps I shall be told that the zeal of modern Catholicity is not that of the early ages of Christianity, and this is one of the reasons which have prevented the conversion of infidel nations. I will not make a long comparison on this point; I will not say all that might be said; I will content myself with making an observation which will remove the difficulty at once. Our Divine Saviour, in order to send His disciples to preach the Gospel, wished that they should abandon all they had and follow Him. The same Saviour, revealing to us the infallible sign of true charity, tells us that there is nothing greater than to give one's life for one's brethren. The Catholic missionaries of the three last centuries have renounced all, have abandoned their country, their families; all the comforts of life, all that can engage the heart of man on earth; they have gone to seek the infidels amid the most imminent dangers, and they have sealed with their blood, in all parts of the world, their ardor for the conversion of their brethren, and for the salvation of souls. I believe that such missionaries are worthy of succeeding to those of the first ages of the Church; all declamations and calumnies are impotent before the triumphant evidence of facts. The Church of the early ages would be honored, like that of our times, by a St. Francis Xavier and the martyrs of Japan. We have spoken, also, of the abundance of the missionaries. The Church had a wonderful fecundity for the conversion of the ancient and barbarian world. At her first appearance, the fiery tongues of the Cenacle and the multitude of prodigies made up for numbers, and multiplied the servants of God. Nations of different languages, listening to the same discourse, heard it at the same time each one in his own tongue; but after this first impulse, by which the Almighty was pleased to confound the powers of hell, things followed the ordinary course, and a greater number of missionaries was required for a greater number of conversions. The great centres of faith and charity, the numerous churches of the East and West, furnished in abundance the apostolic men necessary for the propagation of the faith; and this sacred army had a powerful reserve at hand ready to make up its deficiencies when si6kness, fatigues, and martyrdom had thinned its ranks. Rome was the centre of this great movement; but Rome, in order to give the impulse, had no need either of fleets ready to transport the holy colonies to many thousand places, or of great treasures to support missionaries in desert regions and countries altogether unknown. When the missionary, prostrate at the feet of the Sovereign Pontiff, asked his apostolical benediction, the holy father could send him in peace with his pastoral staff alone; he knew that the Gospel envoy was about to traverse Christian countries, and that even in idolatrous lands he would not be far frlom princes already converted, from bishops, priests, and faithful nations; none of whom would refuse succor to him who went to sow the divine word in the neighboring countries. I leave the reflections which I have just made, on the injury done to the influence of Europe by the schism of Protestantism, with confidence to the judgment of thinking men. I am deeply convinced that this influence thereby received a terrible blow. Without the fatal event of the sixteenth century, the condition of the world would now be very different from what it is. I may, no doubt, delude myself in some degree on this point; but I will appeal to simple good sense whether it is not true, that unity of action, of principles, anti of views, the combination of resources, and the association ofagents, are not in all things the secret of success, and the surest guarantee for a happy result. I will then ask whether Protestantism did not break this unity, render this combination impossible, and this association impracticable? Are not these facts indisputable, as clear as the light of day? These fa ts are recent-they are of yesterday; what PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 267 is their consequence? what deduction should be drawn from them? Let impartiality, good sense, and mere common sense, answer me, if they be only accompanied by good faith. To every thinking man, it is evident that Europe is not what she would have been without the appearance of Protestantism; and certainly it is not less evident, that the results of its civilizing influence on the world have not answered the promises of the early years of the sixteenth century. Let Protestants boast of having given a new direction to European civilization; let them vaunt of having enfeebled the spiritual power of the Popes, by removing millions of souls from the sacred fold; let them glory in having destroyed the religious orders in countries subject to their dominion-of having broken in pieces the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and thrown the Bible in the midst of ignorant crowds, with the assurance that, to understand the sacred volume, private inspiration or the judgment of natural reason was enough; yet it is not the less certain that the unity of the Christian religion has disappeared among them, that they want a centre whence great efforts may proceed, that they are without a guide, wandering like a flock without a shepherd, blown about by every wind of doctrine, and unable to bring forth the least of those great works which Catholicity has produced, and still produces, in such abundance; it is not the less certain that, by their eternal disputes, their calumnies, their attacks upon the dogmas and the discipline of the Church, they have compelled the latter to hold herself in an attitude of defence-to contend for three centuries, depriving her of the precious time and means which she would have used to complete the great projects intended by her, and already so happily begun. Is it a merit to divide men, to provoke discord, to excite wars, to change brother nations into enemies, to convert the great family-party of nations into an arena for rancorous strife? Is it a merit to throw discredit on the missionaries who go to preach the Gospel to infidel nations-to place all imaginable obstacles in their way-to employ every means to render their zeal useless, and their charity without result? If, indeed, all this be a merit, then I acknowledge that this merit belongs to Protestantism; but if all this be disastrous, and injurious to humanity, it is Protestantism which must be responsible for it. When Luther said that he was charged with a high mission, he spoke the truth, but a fearful and alarming truth, and one which he did not understand. The sins of nations sometimes fill up the measure of the patience of the Mest High. The sound of human offences mounts to heaven, and calls for vengeance; the Eternal, in His fearful anger, sends down a look of fire upon the earth; then strikes the fatal hour in His secret and infinite resolves, and the son of perdition, who is to cover the world with mourning and desolation, appears. As the cataracts of heaven were formerly opened to sweep the human race from the face of the' earth, so are the calamities which the God of vengeance holds in reserve for the day of His anger, poured forth from their urn and scattered over the world. The son of perdition raises his voice; that moment is mnarked by the beginning of the catastrophe. The spirit of evil moves over the whole face of the globe, bearing on his sable pinions.the echo of that ominous voice. An incomprehensible giddiness takes possession of men's heads; the nations have eyes, and see not; they have ears, and hear not; in their delirium, the most frightful precipices appear to them smooth, peaceful, and flowery paths; they call good evil, and evil good; they drink with feverish eagerness of the poisoned cup; forgetfulness of all the past, ingratitude for all benefits, seize all minds; the work of the genius of evil is consummated; the prince of the rebel. lious spirits may again bury himself in his empire of darkness; and the human race has learned, by a terrible lesson, that the indignation of the Most High is not to be provoked with impunity 268 CHAPTER XLVI. THE JESUITS. As I am treating of religious institutions, I must not pass over in silenco that celebrated order, which, from the first years of its existence, assumed the stature of a colossus, and employed all a giant's strength; that order which perished without having felt decay; which did not follow the common course of others, either in its foundation, in its development, or even in its fall; that order of which it is truly and correctly said, that it had neither infancy nor old age. It is clear that I speak of the society of Jesus, the Jesuits. The name alone will be enough to alarm a certain class of readers; and, therefore, in order to tranquillize them, I will say that I do not here undertake to write an apology for the Jesuits; this task does not belong to the character of my work; moreover, others have undertaken it, and it is not necessary for me to repeat what is well known. But it is impossible to call to mind the religious institutions, the religious, political, and literary history of Europe, during the last three centuries, without meeting the Jesuits at every step: we cannot travel in the most distant countries, traverse unknown seas, visit the most remote lands, or penetrate the most frightful deserts, without finding everywhere under our feet some memorials of the Jesuits. On the other hand, we cannot look at our libraries without immediately remarking the writings of some Jesuits. Since this is the case, even those among our readers who have the greatest horror of them, ought to pardon us for fixing our attention for a moment on this institute which has filled the world with its name. Even if we were to attach no importance to their modern revival, and to regard their present existence and their probable future as unworthy of examination, it would still be altogether inexcusable not to speak of them, at least as a historical fact. To pass them over in silence, would be to imitate those ignorant and heartless travellers, who, with stupid indifference, tread under foot the most interesting ruins and the most valuable remains. When we study the history of the Jesuits, this very extraordinary circumstance is apparent: they have existed only for a few years, if-compared with the duration of other religious bodies, and yet there is no religious order which has been the object of such keen animosity. From their origin, they have had numerous enemies; never have they been free from them, either in their prosperity and greatness, or in their fall, or even after it; never has their persecution ceased; we should rather say, never has the animosity with which they have been pursued ceased. Since their reappearance, men have constantly fixed their eyes upon them; they tremble lest they should resume their ancient power; the splendor which is reflected on them by the recollections of their brilliant history renders -them visible everywhere, and augments the fears of their enemies. How many men among us are more. alarmed at the foundation of a Jesuits' college than at an irruption of Cossacks! There is, therefore, something very singular and extraordinary in this institute, since it excites the public attention in so high a degree, and its mere name disconcerts its enemies. Men do not despise the Jesuits, but they fear them; sometimes they attempt to throw ridicule on them; but-when that weapon is employed against them, it is felt that he who wields it is not sufficiently calm to use it with success. In vain does he attempt to affect contempt; through the affectation every one can perceive disquietude and anxiety. It is immediately seen that he who attacks does not believe himself opposed to insignificant adversaries. His bile is excited, his sallies become checked, his words, steeped in a fearful bitterness, fall from his mouth like drops from a poisoned cup; it is clear that he takes the PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 269 affair to heart, and does not look upon it as a mere joke. We fancy we hear him say to himself, "Every thing affecting the Jesuits is extremely grave; there is no playing with these men-no regard, no indulgence, no moderation (of any kind; it is necessary always to treat them with rigor, harshness, and detestation; with them, the least negligence may become fatal." Unless I am much deceived, this is the best demonstration that can be given of the eminent merit of the Jesuits. It must be the same with classes and corporations as with individuals-very extraordinary merit necessarily excites numerous enemies, for the simple reason that such merit is always envied, and very often dreaded. In order to know the real cause of this implacable hatred against them, it is enough to consider who are their principal enemies. We know that Protestants and infidels figure there in the first rank; in the second, we remark the men who, with more or less clearness and resolution, show themselves but little attached to the authority of the Roman Church. Both, in their hatred against the Jesuits, are guided by a very rare instinct, for truly they have never met with a more redoubtable adversary. This reflection is worthy of the attention of sincere Catholics, who, for one cause or another, entertain unjust prejudices. When we have to form a judgment on the merit and conduct of a man, it is very often a sure means of deciding between contrary opinions to inquire who are his enemies. When we fix our attention on the institute of the Jesuits, on the time of its foundation, on the rapidity and greatness of its progress, we find the important truth which I have before pointed out more and more confirmed, viz., that the Catholic Church, with wonderful fruitfulness, always furnishes an idea worthy of her to meet all the necessities which arise. Protestantism opposed the Catholic doctrines with the pomp and parade of knowledge and learning; the eclat of human literature, the knowledge of languages, the taste for the models of antiquity, were all employed against religion with a constancy and ardour worthy of a better cause. Incredible efforts were made to destroy the pontifical authority; when they could not destroy it, they attempted at least to weaken and discredit it. The evil spread with fearful rapidity; the mortal poison already circulated in the veins of a considerable portion of the European nations: the contagion began to be propagated even in countries which had remained faithful to the truth. To complete the misfortune, schism and heresy, traversing the seas, corrupted the faith of the simple neophytes of the New World. What was to be done in such a crisis? Could such great evils be remedied by ordinary means? Was it possible to make head against such great and imminent perils by employing common arms? Was it not proper to make some on purpose for such a struggle, to temper the cuirass and shield, to fit them for this new kind of warfare, in order that the cause of truth might not appear in the new arena under fatal disadvantages? Who can doubt that the appearance of the Jesuits was the answer to these questions, that their institute was the solution of the problem? The spirit of the coming ages was essentially one of scientific and literary progress. The Jesuits were aware of this truth; they perfectly understood it. It was necessary to advance with rapidity and never to remain behind: this the new institute does; it takes the lead in all sciences; it allows none to anticipate it. Men study the oriental languages; they produce great works on the Bible; they search the books of the ancient Fathers, the monuments of tradition and of ecclesiastical decisions: in the midst of this great activity, the Jesuits are at their posts; many supereminent works issue from their colleges. The taste for dogmatical controversy is spread over all Europe: many schools preserve and love the scholastic discussions: immortal works of controversy come from the hands of the Jesuits, at the same time that they yield to none in skill and penetration in the schools. The mathematics, astronomy, all the natural sciences, make great progress; learned societies are formed in the capitals of x2 270 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. Europe to cultivate and encourage them: in these societies the Jesuits figure in the first rank. The spirit of time is naturally dissolvent: the institute of thr. Jesuits is interiorly armed against dissolution; in spite of the rapidity of its course, it advances in a compact order, like the mass of a powerful army. The errors, the eternal disputes, the multitude of the new opinions, even the progress of the sciences, by exciting men's minds, give a fatal inconstancy to the human intellect-an impetuous whirlwind, agitating and stirring up all things, carries them away. The order of the Jesuits appears in the midst of this whirlwind, but it partakes neither of its inconstancy nor of its variability; it pursues its career without losing itself; and while only irregularity and vacillation are seen among its adversaries, it advances with a sure step, tending towards its object, like a planet which performs its orbit according to fixed laws. The authority of the Pope, assailed with animosity by Protestants, was indirectly attacked by others with stratagem and dissimulation; the Jesuits showed themselves faithfully attached to that authority; they defend it wherever it is threatened; like vigilant sentinels, they constantly watch over the Freservation of Catholic unity. Their knowledge, influence, and riches never affect their profound submission to the authority of the Popes-a submission which was ever their distinctive characteristic. In consequence of the discovery of the new countries in the east and west, a taste for travelling, for observing distant countries, for the knowledge of the language, manners, and customs of the recently discovered nations, was developed in Europe. The Jesuits, spread over the face of the globe, while preaching the Gospel to the nations, do not forget the study of the thousand things which may interest cultivated Europe; and at their return from their gigantic expeditions, they are seen adding their valuable treasures to the common fund of modern science. How, then, can we be surprised that Protestants have been so violent against an institute in which they found so terrible an enemy; and, on the other hand, was there any thing more natural than to see all the other enemies of religion, enemies some of whom were wholly unmasked and some partially disguised, make common cause with Protestants on this point? The Jesuits were a wall of brass against the assaults upon the Catholic faith; it was resolved to under mine and overturn this rampart; which in the end was accomplished. Very few years had elapsed since the suppression of the Jesuits, and already the memory of the great crimes which were imputed to them was effaced by the ravages of an unexampled revolution. Men of good faith, whose excessive con. fidence had believed perfidious calumnies, could convince themselves that the riches, knowledge, influence, and the pretended ambition of the Jesuits, would never have been as fatal as the triumph of their enemies; these religious men would never have upset a throne or cut off the head of a king on the scaffold. M. Guizot, in glancing at European civilization, necessarily encountered the Jesuits; and it must be acknowledged that he has not done them the justice to which they are entitled. After having lamented the inconsistency of the Protestant Refdrmation, and the narrow spirit which guided it, after having confessed that Catholics knew very well what they did and what they wished, and that they acted up to the principles of their conduct and avowed all their consequences, M. Guizot declares that there never was a more consistent government than that of Rome, and that the court of Rome, always having a fixed idea, has known how to pursue a consistent and regular line of conduct; he extols the strength which results from a full knowledge of what one does and what one wishes; he shows the advantage of a settled design, and of the complete and abs6lute adoption of a principle and system; that is to say, he makes a brilliant panegyric on, and a powerful apology for, the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, M. Guizot finds the Jesuits in his way, and unworthy as it is of such a mind as his, which, in order to require just renown, has no need of burning incense before PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITft CATIIOLICITY. 271 vulgar prejudices or mean passions, he attempts, in passing, to throw a reproach upon them. "Every one knows," says M. Guizot, "that the principal power instituted to contend against the religious revolution, was the order of the Jesuits. Throw a glance over their history; they have failed everywhere; wherever they have interfered to any extent, they have brought misfortune to the cause in which they have engaged. In England they have destroyed kings, in Spain nations." M. Guizot had just told us of the superiority which is obtained over an adversary by regular and consistent conduct, by the complete and absolute adoption of a system, and by a fixed idea; as a proof of all this he showed us the Jesuits. he exhibited to us in them the expression of the system of the Church; and behold, without any explanation, if not without a motive, the writer suddenly changes his course; the advantages of the system which he has just praised disappear from his eyes; for those who follow this system, that is the Jesuits themselves, fail everywhere, and everywhere bring misfortunes on the cause which they embrace. How can such assertions be reconciled? The credit, influence, atd sagacity of the Jesuits have passed into a proverb. The reproach against them was, of having extended their views too far, of having conceived ambitious plans, and obtained by their skill a decided ascendency in all the places where they succeeded in gaining entrance; Protestants themselves have openly confessed that the Jesuits were their most redoubtable adversaries; it was always thought that the foundation of the order had an immense result, and now we learn from M. Guizot, that the Jesuits have everywhere failed; that their support, far fron being a great succour, always brought fatality and misfortune to the cause of which they declared themselves the advocates. If they were such fatal servants, why were their services sought with so much eagerness? If they always conducted affairs so ill, why have the most important'ones in the end fallen into their hands? Adversaries so foolish or so unfortunate certainly ought not to have excited in the enemies' camp so much clamor as was raised at their approach. " In England the Jesuits have-destroyed kings; in Spain nations." Nothing is easier than these bold strokes of the pen; the whole of a great history is traced in a single line, and an infinity of facts, grouped and confounded, are made to pass under the eye of the reader with the rapidity of lightning; the eye has not even time to look at them, still less to analyze them as would be necessary. M. Guizot should have devoted some sentences to prove his assertion; he should have stated the facts and pointed out the reasons on which he builds, when he affirms that the influence of the Jesuits has had so fatal an effect. With respect to the kings of England here so boldly sacrificed, I cannot enter into an examination of the religious and political revolutions which agitated and desolated the three kingdoms for two centuries after the schism of Henry VIII. These revolutions, in their immense circle, have presented very different phases; disfigured and perverted by the Protestants, who have success in their favor, that decisive, if not convincing argument, they have made some men of little reflection believe that the disasters of England were in great part due to the imprudence of the Catholics, and, as an indispensable corollary, to the pretended intrigues of the Jesuits. In spite of this, the Catholic movement which England has witnessed for half a century, and the great works which every day carry on the restoration of Catholicity, will at last disperse the calumnies by which our faith has been stigmatized. Before long, the history of the last three Centuries will be restored as it ought, and the truth will appear in its proper (ight. This observation relieves me from the necessity of entering into details on the subject of the first assertion of M. Guizot; but I must not leave without reply what he so gratuitously affirms on the subject of Spain. " The Jesuits have destroyed nations in Spain," says M. Guizot; I wish that the publicist had explained to us to what great disaster he alluded. To what 272 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. period does he refer?. I have examined our history, and I do not find this destruction which was caused by the Jesuits; I cannot irmagine whereon the historian fixed his eyes when he pronounced these words. Nevertheless, the antithesis between Spain and England, between nations and kings, leads us to suspect that M. Guizot alluded to the shipwreck of political liberty; we are not aware that there is any other better-founded or more legitimate interpretation. But then a new difficulty presents itself: how can we believe that a man so versed in the knowledge of history, composing a course of lectures which is particularly devoted to the general history of European civilization, should fall into a palpable error,-should commit an unpardonable anachronism? Indeed, whatever may be the judgments of publicists on the causes which have produced the loss of liberty in Spain, and on the important events of the days of the Catholic sovereigns, of Philippe le Beau, of Jeanne-la-Folle, and the regency of Cisneros, all are unanimous in saying that the war of the Commons was the critical moment, decisive of the liberty of Spain; all are agreed that the two parties played their last stake at that time, and that the battle of Villalar and the punishment of Padilla, by confirming and increasing the royal power, destroyed the last hopes of the partisans of the ancient liberties. Well, the battle of Villllar was fought in 1521; at that time the Jesuits did not exist, and St. Ignatius, their founder, was still a brilliant knight, battling like a hero under the walls of Pampeluna. To this there is no reply; all philosophy and eloquence are unable to efface these dates. During the sixteenth century, the Cortes met more or less often, and with more or less influence, above all in the kingdom of Aragon; but it is as clear as daylight that the royal power had every thing under its domination, that nothing could resist it, and the unfortunate attempt of the Aragonese, at the time of the affair of Don Antonio Perez, sufficiently shows that there existed then no remains of ancient liberty which could oppose the will of kings. Some years after the war of the Commons, Charles V. gave the coup de grace to the Cortes of Castile, by excluding from it the clergy and the nobles, to leave only the Estamento de Procuradores, a feeble rampart against the exigencies, against the all-powerful attempts of a monarch on whose dominions the sun never Bet. This exclusion took place in 1538, at the time when St. Ignatius was still occupied with the foundation of his order; the Jesuits, therefore, could have had no influence therein. Still more, the Jesuits, after their establishment in Spain, never employed their influence against the liberty of the people. From their pulpits they didl not teach doctrines favorable to despotism; if they reminded the people of their duties, they also reminded kings of theirs; if they wished the rights of monarchto be respected, they would not allow those of the people to be trodden unde) foot. To prove the truth of this, I appeal to the testimony of those who have read the writings of the Jesuits of that time on questions of public law. "The Jesuits," says M. Guizot, "were called to contend against the general course of events, against the development of modern civilization, against the liberty ot the human mind." If the general course of events is nothing but the course of Protestantism, if the development of Protestantism is the development of modern civilization, if the liberty of the human mind consists only in the fatal pride, in the mad independence which the pretended reformers communicated to it, then nothing is more true than the assertion of the publicist; but if the preservation of Catholicity is a fact of any weight in the history of Europe, if her influence during the last three centuries has amounted to any thing, if the reigns of Charles V., Philip II., Louis XIV., do not deserve to be effaced from modern history, and if regard ought to be had to that immense counterpoise to which was owing the equilibrium of the two religions; in fine, if the faith of Descartes, Malebranche, Bossuet, and Fen6lon, can make a dignified appearance PROTESTANT1SM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 273 in the picture of modern civilization, it is impossible to understand how the Jesuits, when intrepidly defending Catholicity, could be struggling against the general course of events, against the development of modern civilization, and against the freedom of human thought. After having made this first false step, M. Guizot continues to slip in a deplorable manner. I particularly call the attention of my readers to the following evident contradictions: "With the Jesuits, there is no eclat, no grandeur. They have performed no brilliant exploits." The publicist entirely forgets what he has just advanced, or rather he directly retracts it, when he adds, a few lines further, and yet, nothing is more certain than that they have had grandeur; a grand idea belongs to their names, to their influence, and to their history. It is because they knew what they did, and what they wished; it is because they had a clear and full knowledge of the principles on which they acted, and of the end towards which they tended; that is to say, because they have had grandeur of thought and of will." Is genius in its vastest enterprises, in the realization of its most gigantic projects, any thing more than a grand idea and a grand intention? The mind conceives, the will executes; this fashions the model, that makes the application; if there be grandeur in the model and in the application, how can the whole work fail to be grand? Pursuing the task of lowering the Jesuits, M. Guizot makes a parallel between them and the Protestants; he confounds ideas in such a way, and so far forgets the nature of things, that one would hardly believe it, if the words themnselves did not prove it beyond a doubt. Forgetting that it is necessary for the terms of a comparison not to be of a totally different kind, which renders all comparison impossible, M. Guizot compares a religious institute with whole nations; he goes so far as to reproach the Jesuits with not having raised the people en masse, and with not having changed the form and condition of states. Here is the passage: "They have acted in subterraneous, dark, and inferior ways; in ways which were not at all apt to strike the imagination, or to conciliate for them that public interest which attaches itself to great things, whatever may be their principle and end. The party against which they contended, on the contrary, not only conquered, but conquered with eclat; it has done great things and by great means; it has aroused nations; it has filled Europe with great men; it has changed the form and the lot of nations in the face of day. In a word, all'has been against the Jesuits, both fortune and appearances." Without intending to offend M. Guizot, let us avow, that for the honor of his logic, one would desire to efface from his writings such phrases as we have just read. What! ought the Jesuits to have put the nations in motion, made them arise en masse, and changed the form and condition of states? Would they not have been extraordinary religious men, if they had been allowed to do such things? It was said of the Jesuits that they had unbounded ambition, and that they attempted to rule the world; and now they are compared with their adversaries in order to throw it in their faces that the latter have overturned the world; a distinguished merit, which must have been a disgrace to the Jesuits themselves. Indeed, the Jesuits have never attempted to imitate their adversaries on this point; with respect to the spirit of confusion and perturbation, they joyfully yield the palm to those to whom it rightly belongs. As far as great men are concerned, if the question be with respect to the greatness of the enterprises which are becoming in a minister of the God of peace, then have the Jesuits had this kind of grandeur in an eminent degree. Whether it be in the most arduous affairs, or in the vastest projects in science and literature, whether it be in the most distant missions, or in the most redoubtable perils, the Jesuits have never remained behind; on the contrary, they have been seen to display a spirit so bold and enterprising, that they have thereby obtained the most distinguished renown. If the great men cf whoni 35 274 IPROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. MI. Guizot speaks are restless tribunes, who, putting themselves at the head of an ungovernable people, violated the public peace, if they are the Protestant warriors whose names have shone in the wars of Germany, France, and England, the comparison is foolish, and has no meaning; for priests and warriors, religious and tribunes, are so distinct, so different in actions and character, that to compare them is impossible. Justice required that in such a parallel, where the Jesuits are taken as one of the terms of the comparison, Protestants should not be placed on the other, unless by them the reformed ministers are meant. Even in this later case the comparison would not have been absolutely exact, since, in the midst of the great differences between the two religions, the Jesuits are not found alone in defending Catholicity. The Church, during the last three centuries, has had great prelates, holy priests, eminent savants, and writers of the first order, who did not belong to the company of Jesus; the Jesuits were reckoned among the principal champions, but they were not the only ones. Had it been wished fairly to compare Protestantism with Catholicity, it would have been requisite to oppose Protestant to Catholic nations, to compare priests with priests, savants with savants, politicians with politicians, warriors with warriors; to do otherwise is monstrously to confound names and things, and to reckon too much on the limited understandings and excessive simplicity of hearers and readers. It is certain that if the method we have pointed out were adopted, Protestantism would not appear so brilliant and superior as the publicist has exhibited it to us. Catholics, as M. Guizot well knows, do not yield to Protestants in letters, in war, or in political ability. History is there; let it be consulted. CHAPTER XLVII. THE FUTURE OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS.-THEIR PRESENT NECESSITY. WHEN, after having fixed our eyes on the vast and interesting picture which religious communities present to us, after having called to mind their origin, their varied forms, their vicissitudes of poverty and riches, of depression and prosperity, of coldness and of fervor, of relaxation and strict reform, we see them still subsist and arise anew on all sides, in spite of the efforts of their enemies, we naturally ask what will be their future? their past is full of glory; what influence have they not exerted in society, under a thousand different aspects, and in the thousand phases of society itself? Yet what spectacle do they show us in modern times? On one hand they have been weakened, like an old wall which we see ruined by the effect of time; on the other we have seen them suddenly disappear, like weak trees overthrown by the whirlwind. Moreover, they seemed to be condemned by the spirit of the age without appeal. Matter having become supreme, extended its empire on all sides, scarcely allowing the mind a moment for reflection and meditation; industry and commerce, carrying their turmoil to the remotest parts of the earth, confirmed the judgment of an irreligious philosophy against a class of men devoted to prayer, silence, and solitude. Nevertheless, facts every day belie their conjectures; -the hearts of Christiaus still preserve the most flattering hopes, and these hopes are strengthened and animated more and more. The hand of God, who carries out His high designs and laughs at the vain thoughts of man, shows it more and more wonderfil. Philosophy sees a wide field for meditation open before it; it anticipates the probable future of religious communities; it may make conjectures on the influence which is reserved for them in society for the future. We have already seen what is the real origin of religious institutions; we have found that origin in the spirit of the Catholic religion, and history has told PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 275 us that they have arisen wherever she is established. They have varied in form, in rule, in object, but the fact has been always the same. Thence we have inferred that wherever the Catholic faith shall be maintained, religious institutions will appear anew under some form or other. This prognostic may be made with complete certainty; we do not fear that time will belie it. We live in an age steeped in voluptuous materialism; interests which are called positive, or, in plainer terms, gold and pleasure, have acquired such an ascendency that we might apparently fear to see some societies lamentably retrograde towards the manners of paganism, towards that period of disgrace when religion might be summed up in the deification of matter. But in the midst of this afflicting picture, when the mind, full of anguish, feels itself on the point of swooning away, the observer sees that the soul of man is not yet dead, and that lofty ideas, noble and dignified feelings, are not entirely banished from.the earth. The human mind feels itself too great to be limited to wretched objects; it comprehends that it is given it to rise higher than an air-balloon. Observe what happens with respect to industrial progress. Those steamvessels which leave our ports with the rapidity of an arrow to traverse the immensity of ocean, those burning vehicles which skim along our plains, and penetrate into the heart of mountains, realizing under our eyes what would have seemed a dream to our fathers; those other machines which give movement to gigantic workshops, and as if by magic set in motion innumerable instruments, and elaborate with the most wonderful precision the most delicate productions: all this is great and wonderful. But however great, however wonderful it may be, it no longer astonishes; these wonders no longer captivate our attention in 4 more lively manner than the generality of the objects which surround us. Man feels that he is still greater than these machines and masterpieces of art; his heart is an abyss which nothing can fill; give him the whole world, and the void will be the same. The depth is immeasurable; the soul, created in the image and likeness of God, cannot be satisfied without the possession of Him. The Catholic religion constantly revives these lofty thoughts, and points out this immense void. In barbarous times she placed herself among rude and ignorant nations to lead them to civilization; she now remains among civilized nations to provide against the dissolution which threatens them. She disregards the coldness and neglect with which indifference and ingratitude reply to her; she cries out without ceasing, addresses her warnings to the faithful with indefatigable constancy, makes her voice resound in the ears of the incredulous, and remains intact and immovable in the midst of the agitation and instability of human things. Thus do those wonderful temples which have been left to us by the remotest, antiquity, remain entire amid the action of time, of revolutions, and of convulsions; around them arise and disappear the habitations of men, the palaces of the great and the cottages of the poor, but the time-stained edifice stands like a solemn and mysterious object in the midst of the smiling fields and showy structures which surround it; its vast cupola annihilates all that is near; its summit boldly rises towards the heavens. The labors of religion do not remain without fruit; penetrating minds acknowledge her truths; even those who refuse their submission to the faith confess the beauty, utility, and necessity of this divine religion; they regard it as an historical fact of the highest importance, and agree that the good order and prosperity of families and states depend upon it. But God, who watches over the safety of the church, is not content with these avowals of philosophy; torrents of all-powerful grace descend from on high, and the Divine Spirit is diffused and renewed on the face of the earth. Even from the whirlwind of the world, corrupt and indifferent as it is, privileged men frequently come forth, whose foreleads have been touched with the flame of inspiration, and whose 276 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. hearts are on fire with heavenly love. In retreat, in solitude, in meditation on the eternal truths, they have acquired that disposition of mind which is necessary to perform arduous tasks; in spite of raillery and ingratitude, thev devote themselves to console the unfortunate, to educate the young, and to convert idolatrous nations. The Catholic religion will last till the end of time, and so long will there be these privileged men separated by God from the rest, to be called to extraordinary sanctity, or to console their brethren in their misfortunes. Now these men will seek each other, will unite to pray, will associate to aid each other in their enterprise, will ask for the apostolical benediction of the Vicar of Jesus Christ, and will found religious institutions. Whether they be old orders only modified, or entirely new ones; whatever be their forms, rules of life or dress, all this is of little importance; the origin, the nature, and the object will be the same. It is vain for men to oppose the miracles of grace. Even the present condition of society will require the existence of religious institutions. When the organization of modern nations shall have been more profoundly examined, when time by its bitter lessons and terrible experience shall have thrown more light on the real state of things, it will be evident that errors greater than men have imagined, have been committed in the social as well as in the political order. Sad experience has corrected ideas to a great extent, but this does not suffice. It is evident that present societies want the necessary means to supply the necessities which press upon them. Property is divided and subdivided more and more; every day it becomes more feeble and inconstant, industry multiplies productions in an alarming manner, commerce extends itself indefinitely; that is to say, society, approaching the term of pretended social perfection, is on the point of attaining the wishes of that materialistic school, in whose eyes men are only machines, and which has not imagined that society can undertake any grander or more useful object than the immense development of material interests.'Misery has increased in proportion to the augmentation of production; to the eyes of all provident men it is as clear as the light of day that things are pursuing a wrong course, and that if a remedy cannot be applied in time, the denouement will be fatal; the vessel which we see advancing so rapidly, with all her sails set and a favorable wind, is about to strike upon a rock. The accumulation of riches, brought about by the rapidity of the industrial and commercial movement, tends towards the establishment of a system which would devote the sweat and the lives of all to the profit of the few; but this -adency finds its counterpoise in levelling ideas which agitate very many heads, and which, moulded into different theories, more or less openly attack property, the present organization of labor, and the distribution of productions. Immense multitudes, overwhelmed with misery and in want of moral instruction and education, are disposed to promote the realization of projects not less criminal than foolish, whenever an unhappy concurrence of circumstances shall render the attempt possible. It is superfluous to support the melancholy assertions which we have just made with facts; the experience of every day confirms them but too much. Such being the case, may we be allowed to inquire of society, what means there are, either of improving the state of the masses, or of guiding and restraining them? It is clear that, for the first of these, neither the inspirations of private interests, nor the instinct of preservation which animates the favored classes, are sufficient. These classes, properly speaking, as they exist, have not the character which constitutes a class: they are only a collection of families just emerged from poverty and obscurity, and who rapidly advance towards the abyss whence they came, leaving their place to other families who will run the same course. We find nothing fixed or stable about them. They live PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 277 from day to day, without thinking of the morrow: far different fiom the old nobility, whose origin was lost in the obscurity of the remotest antiquity, and whose strength and organization promised long centuries of existence. These men could and did follow a system; for what existed to-day was sure of existence to-morrow; now all is changeable and inconstant. Individuals, like families, labor to accumulate, to lay by riches, not in order to sustain for ages the power and splendor of an illustrious house, but to enjoy to-day what has been but just acquired. The presentiment of the short duration which things must have, augments still more the giddiness and frenzy of dissipation. The times are past when opulent families were desirous'of founding some enduring establishment to evince their generosity and perpetuate the splendor of their names: hospitals, and other houses of beneficence, do not come from the coffers of the bankers, as they did from those of the old castles. We must acknowledge, however painful may be the avowal, that the opulent classes of society do not fulfil the duty which belongs to them: the poor should respect the property of the rich; but the rich should, in their turn, respect the condition of the poor: such is the will of God. It follows from what I have stated, that the resource of beneficence is wanting in the social organization; and observe well, that administration does not constitute society. Administration -supposes society to be already existing and entirely formed; when we expect the salvation of society from means purely administrative, we attempt a thing which is out of the laws of nature. In vain shall we imagine new expedients; in vain shall we form ingenious plans, and make new experiments; society has need of a more powerful agent. It is essential that the world should submit to the law of love or that of force, to charity or servitude. All the nations who have not had charity, have found no other means of solving the social problem, than that of subjecting the greatest number to slavery. Reason teaches, and history proves, that neither public order, property, nor even society itself, can exist, unless one of these is chosen; modern society will not be exempted from the general law; the symptoms which now present themselves to our eyes clearly indicate the events whereof the generations which are to succeed us will be the witnesses. Happily, the fire of charity still burns on the earth; but the indifference and prejudices of the wicked compel it to remain under the embers. They are alarmed at the least spark of it which escapes, as if it would enkindle a fatal conflagration. If the development of institutions which are exclusively based upon the principle of charity was favored, their salutary results and the supe. riority which they possess over all that are founded on other principles would soon be evident. It is impossible to supply the wants which I have just pointed out, without organizing, on a vast scale, systems of beneficence directed by charity: now this organization cannot be made without religious institutions. It cannot be denied that Christians who live in the world may form associations by which this object will be accomplished more or less completely; but there are always a multitude of cases which absolutely require the co-operation of men exclusively devoted to them. It is necessary, moreover, to have a nucleus to serve as the centre of all efforts, which presents, by its own nature, a guarantee for preservation, and which provides against the interruptions and oscillations which are inevitable in a large concourse of agents, who are not bound together by any tie strong enough to preserve them from differences, from separation, and even from intestine contests. This vast system which we speak of ought to extend not only to beneficence. but also to the education and instruction of the many. The establishment of schools will remain sterile, if not mischievous, as long as they are not founded upon religion; and they will be thus founded only in appearance and name, while the direction of these schools does not belong to the ministers of religion, Y 278 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. The secular clergy may fulfil a portion of this charge, but they are not enough for the task; on the one hand, their limited number, and on. the other, their other duties, prevent their acting on a scale sufficiently large to supply all the necessities of the times: hence it follows, that the propagation of religious institutions in our days has a social importance, which cannot be mistaken without shutting one's eyes to the evidence of facts. If you reflect on the organization of European nations, you will understand that their real advance has been prevented by some fatal cause. Indeed, their situation is so singular, that it cannot be the result of the principles whence these nations have drawn their origin, and which have given them their increase. It is evident that the countless multitude which one sees in society, making use of all its faculties with complete liberty, could not, in the state in which it now is, have been comprised in the primitive design-in the plan of true civilization. When we create forces, we should know what we shall do with them, by what means we shall move and direct them; without this we only prepare violent shocks, endless agitation, disorder, and destruction. The mechanician who cannot introduce a force into his machine without breaking the harmony of the other movers, takes care not to introduce it; and he sacrifices acceleration of movement and the greatest strength of impulse to the fundamental necessity of the preservation of the machine and the order and utility of its functions. In the present state of society, we observe that power which is not in harmony with the others; and the men who are charged with directing the machine pay but little attention to gaining the required harmony. Nothing acts upon the mass of the people but the ardent desire of ameliorating their condition, of placing themselves in comfort, and of obtaining the enjoyments of which the rich are in possession; nothing to induce them to be resigned to the rigors of their lot; nothing to console them in their misfortunes; nothing to render the present evils more supportable by.the hopes of a better future; nothing to inspire them with respect for property, obedience to the laws, submission to government; nothing to produce in their minds gratitude towards the powerful classes; nothing to temper their hatreds, diminish their envy, and mollify their anger; nothing to raise their ideas above earthly things, their desires from sensual pleasures; nothing to form in their hearts a solid morality capable of restraining them from vice and crime. If we pay attention, we shall see that the men of this age have only three means of restraining the masses, and they regard these as enough; but reason and experience show that these expedients are not only not efficacious, but even dangerous; they are these,-private interests well understood, public force well employed, and enervation of body, followed by feebleness of mind, which restrains the populace from violent means. "Let us make the poor man understand," says the philosopher, " that he has an interest in respecting the property of the rich; that his powers and his labor are also real property, which require to be respected in tteir turn; let us maintain an imposing public force, always ready to act on the menaced point, in order to stifle any attempts at disorder at their birth; let us organize a police, extending over society like an immense net, and allowing nothing to escape its sight; let us satisfy the people with cheap enjoyments of all kinds; let us furnish them with the means of imitating, in their grosser orgies, the refined pleasures of our saloons and theatres, thereby their manners will be softened-that is to say, they will be enervated; the people will become impotent to make great revolutions, their arms being weak, and their hearts cowardly." This is the sytem of those who attempt to govern society and control disturbing passions without the aid cf religion. Let us pause for a moment to examine these means. It is, no doubt, easy to say, in fine language, that the poor man is interested in respecting the property PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 279 of the rich; and that from this consideration alone he ought to submit to the established order of things; and this without even saying a word of the principles of morality, and leaving out all that is removed from mere material interests. It is easy to write books to explain such doctrines; but the difficulty consists in making them understood in the same way by the wretched father of a family, who, confined all the day to hard labor, plunged into an unwholesome atmosphere, or buried'in the bowels of the earth to work in a.coal-mine, can scarcely earn the subsistence of himself and his family; and who, returning in the evening to his squalid abode, instead of repose and consolation, finds only the complaints of his wife and the tears of his children, asking him for a mouthful of bread. In truth, is it strange that such a doctrine should not be graciously received by those wretched beings, whose minds cannot perfectly understand the parity between the poor and the rich with respect to the interests of all, and the respect due to property? We will say plainly, that if you banish from the world the moral principles, and desire to found the respect due to property exclusively on private interest, the words here addressed to the poor man are only a solemn imposture: it is false that his private interest is in accordance with the interests of the rich. Let us suppose the most fearful revolution, let us imagine that the established order is radically upset, that authority gives way, that all institutions are swallowed up, that laws disappear, that properties are divided, or remain abandoned to the first who shall seize them, there is no doubt that the rich man loses; let us see what can happen to the poor. Will he be robbed of his wretched possessions? no one will dream of doing so; misery tempts not cupidity. You will tell me that he will find no work, and that hunger will therefore be his lot. That is true; but do you not see that in this case the poor man is a gambler at a high stake, for whom the chance of loss, arising from the want of work, is compensated by the probabilities of obtaining a share of the rich booty? You add that he will not be allowed to keep that part; but observe that, if his poverty becomes changed into riches, he will soon imagine a new order of things, a new arrangement, a government which will guarantee acquired rights, and prevent the destruction of established things. Will he be without an example to follow in such circumstances? Have recent examples been so easily forgotten? The poor man sees clearly that a great number of his fellows will suffer evils without end or compensation; he is not ignorant that he himself may, perhaps, be of the number of the unfortunate; but, supposing that he has no other guide than interest, supposing that new misfortunes, in the last excess, can bring him only hunger and nakedness-things to which he is so well accustomed, whether owing to the small return for his labor, or to the frequent interruptions of work and the vicissitudes of industry-you cannot charge with rashness the boldness with which he comes forward, at the risk of increasing his privations in some degree, and with the hope of being delivered from them, perhaps for ever. This is a matter of calculation; and when private interest is in question, we cannot grant to philosophy the right of regulating the calculations of the poor. The public power, and the vigilance of the police, are the two resources in which the best hopes are founded; and certainly not without reason; for, at the present time, if the world is not revolutionized, it is owing to them. We no longer see, as in ancient times, tro )ps of slaves bound together with chains, but we see whole armies, with arms in their hands, guarding capitals. If you observe closely, after so many discussions, so many trials, so many reforms, so many changes, questions of government and public order have, in the end, resolved themselves into questions of force. The rich class is armed against the poor; and above both, there are armies to maintain tranquillity with cannon, if necessary. Assuredly, the picture which is exhibited to us in this respect, among modern nations, is worthy of our attention. Since the fall of Napoleon, the great powers 280 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. have enjoyed an Augustan peace; for it is not worth while to speak of the smaLi events which, from time to time, have disturbed this universal peace; neither the occupation of Ancona, nor the siege of Antwerp, nor the war in Poland, can be considered as European wars; as to Spain, limited, as she is by nature, to a narrow theatre, she can neither traverse the seas, nor pass the Pyrenean nountains. Well, in spite of this, the statistics of Europe show us enormous armies; the budgets which are necessary to support them exhaust and ov'erwhelm the nations. What is the use of this military preparation? Do you believe that such gigantic forces are kept on foot only that governments may not be taken unawares by a general war; that war, which always threatens and never breaks out that war, which is feared neither by the government nor by the people? No! they have another object: these armies are intended to compensate for the moral means, the want of which is deplorably felt on all sides, and nowhere more keenly than where the words justice and liberty have been proclaimed with the most ostentation. The enervation of the numerous classes, by means of monotonous, effortless labor, and a complete abandonment to pleasure, may be considered by some as an element of order; as their power of striking is thereby taken away, or at least diminished. We allow that the workmen of our age are not capable of displaying the terrible energy of ancient champions of the Commons; of those men who, throwing off the yoke of the feudal lords, struggled hand to hand with formidable warriors, whose names were immortalized on the plains of Palestine. The new revolutionists want, also, that courage and that enthusiasm which are communicated to the soul by great and generous ideas. The man who fights only to procure enjoyments will never be capable of making heroic sacrifices. Sacrifices demand self-denial; they are incompatible with egotism: now the thirst fo' pleasure is egotism, carried to the last degree of refinement. Nevertheless, it must be observed that a mode of life purely material, and deprived of the stimulus of the moral principles, ends by extinguishing the feelings, and plunges the soul into a sort of stupidity, into a forgetfulnesspf self, which may, in certain cases, supply the place of valor. The soldier whe marches with tranquillity to death, when leaving a brutal orgie, and the man who commits suicide.with imperturbable calmness, without anxiety for the future, are precisely in the same position. The boldness of the one, and the firmnese of the other, show contempt of life. So, if we suppose their passions to be excited by the trouble of the times, the numerous class may display an energy of which they are supposed to be incapable; the sight of their numbers may raise their courage; bold and cunning leaders, putting themselves at their head, may succeed in rendering them terrible. However this may be, it is at least certain that society cannot continue its career without the aid and influence of moral means; these means cannot suffice, shut up within the narrow circle in which they are confined; consequently, it is indispensable to encourage the development of institutions adapted to exercise moral influence in a practical and efficacious manner. Books are not enough; the extension of instruction is but an inefficient means, which may even become fatal, unless based upon solid religious ideas. The propagation of a vague religious feeling, undefined, without rules, without dogmas or worship, will only serve to propagate gross superstitions among the masses, and to form a religion of poetry and romance among the cultivated classes; they are vain remedies, which do not stop the progress of the disease; but, by augmenting the delirium of the patie.nt,'precipitate his death. The education, the instruction, the improvement of the moral condition of the people, these words, which are in the mouth of everybody, prove how keenly and generally the wound in the social body is felt, and how urgent is the necessity of the timely application of a remedy, in order to prevent incalculable evils. PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 281 This is the reason why projects of beneficence ferment in so many minds; why it is attempted, under so many different forms, to establish schools for children and adults, and other similar institutions; but all will be useless, unless the work be confided to Christian charity. Let us profit by the knowledge acquired by experience in this matter; let us take advantage of administrative improvements, the better to attain our end; let the establishments be accommodated to present wants and exigences; let charity never embarrass the action of power, and power, on its. side, never oppose the action of charity: all this will be well; but nothing of all this is inconsistent with a system, in which the Catholic religion will recover the influence which belongs to her; of her it may be said, with perfect truth, that she makes herself all to all, to gain the whole world. The little minds which do not carry their views beyond a limited horizon; bad hearts, which nourish only hatred, and delight onlyif exciting rancor and in calling forth the evil passions; the fanatics of a mechanical civilization, who see no other agent than steam, no other power than gold and silver, no other object than production, no other end than pleasure; all these men, assuredly, will attach but little importance to the observations which I have made; for them, the moral development of individuals and society is of little importance; they do not even perceive what passes under their eyes; for them, history is mute, experience barren, and the future a mere nothing. Happily there is a great number of men who believe that their minds are nobler than metal, more powerful than steam, and too grand and too sublime to be satisfied with momentary pleasure. Man, in their eyes, is not a being who lives by chance, given up to the current of time and -the mercy of circumstances, who is not called upon to think of the destinies which attend him, or to prepare for them, by making a worthy use of the moral and intellectual qualifications wherewith the Author of nature has favored him. If the physical world is subject to the laws of the Creator, the moral world is not less so; if matter can be used in a thousand ways for the profit of man, the mind, created to the image and likeness of God, is also endowed with valuable powers; a vast sphere opens before him; he feels himself called to work for the good of humanity, without confining himself to combinations and modifications of matter, like an instrument or a slave of the material element, whereof the empire and control have been granted to him by God. Let faith in another life, and charity, which have come down from God, fertilize these noble feelings, and enlighten and direct these sublime thoughts; you will then clearly see that matter has no claim to be the ruler of the world; and'that the King of the creation has not yet abdicated his rights. But if you attempt to build on any other foundation than that which has been established by God, do not indulge flattering hopes, your edifice will be like the house built upon sand; the rain came, the wind blew, and the edifice was overturned with violence. (27) CHAPTER XLVIII. RELIGION AND LIBERTY. IN the thirteenth chapter of this work we said, "The heart is filled with generous indignation when we hear the religion of Jesus Christ reproached with a tendency towards oppression. It is true, that if we confound the spirit of real liberty with that of demagogues, we shall not find it in Catholicity. But if we abstain from a monstrous abuse of the name, if we give to the word liberty its reasonable, just, useful, and pleasant meaning, then the Catholic religion may fearlessly claim the gratitude of the human race, for she has civilized the nations 36 Y2 282 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. who have professed her, and civilization is true liberty." From what we harT already shown, the reader may judge whether Catholicity has been favorable, or otherwise, to European civilization, and, consequently, whether she has done any injury to real liberty. On the various points on which we have compared her with Protestantism, we have seen the injurious tendencies of the one and the advantages of the other; the judgment of clear and enlightened reason cannot be doubtful. As the real liberty of nations does not consist in appearances, but resides in their intimate organization, in the same way as the life does in the heart, I might dispense with entering. into a comparison of the two religions with respect to civil liberty; but I do not wish to be accused of having avoided a delicate question, from a fear that Catholicity would not come out of it with honor, or to allow it to be suspected that my faith has any difficulty in sustaining a parallel as advantageously on this ground as on others. In order to clear up this question completely, it is necessary to examine thoroughly the vague accusations which have been made on this matter against Catholicity, and the eulogiums lavished on the pretended Reformation. It is necessary to show that only gratuitous calumny has been able to reproach the Catholic religion with favoring servitude and oppression; it is necessary to dissipate, by the light of philosophy and history, that deceitful prejudice, by the aid of which free-thinkers and Protestants have labored to persuade the people that Catholicity is favorable to servitude, that the Church is the bulwark of tyrants, that the name of Pope is synonymous with that of friend and natural protector of whoever desires to debase men and reduce them to servitude. There are two ways in which this question may be decided; by doctrines and by facts. Those who have said that the human race had lost its rights, and that they were revived by Rousseau, certainly have not given themselves much trouble in examining what are the real rights of the human race, and what are the apocryphal rights advanced by the philosopher of Geneva in his Contrat Social. Indeed, it may be said with more truth, that the human race had very valuable rights, acknowledged as such, and which Rousseau lost sight of. He undertook to examine thoroughly the origin of the civil power, and his wild notions, instead of explaining the matter, have only served to confuse it. I believe that on this important point men have never had ideas less clear and distinct than now. Revolutions have upset every thing in theory and in fact; governments have been sometimes revolutionary, sometimes reactionary; and sometimes revolution, and sometimes reaction, has been predominant. It is extremely difficult to obtain from modern books a clear, accurate, and exact knowledge of the nature of the civil power, of its origin, and of its relations with subjects; in some of these you will find the doctrines of Rousseau, in others those of Bonald: Rousseau is a miner who saps in order to overturn; Bonald is the hero who saves in his arms the tutelary deities of the city delivered to the flames; but in his fear of profanation, he carries them covered with a veil. However, it would not be just to attribute to Rousseau the melancholy honor of having begun the confusion of ideas on this point; at various times there have been found misguided men, who have labored to disturb society by anarchical doctrines; but the embodiment of these doctrines, and the forming of them into seductive theories, dates chiefly from the birth of Protestantism. Luther, in his book De Libertate Christiana, sowed the seeds of endless troubles by the extravagant doctrine, that a Christian is subject to no one. In vain did he have recourse to the evasive declaration, that he did not speak of magistrates or civil laws; the peasants of Germany drew their own consequences; they rose up against their lords, and enkindled a dreadful war. The divine right held by Catholics has been accused of favoring despotism; and it has been considered PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 283 as so much opposed to the rights of the people, that the two expressions are often antithetically employed. Divine right, well understood,'is not opposed to the rights, but to the excesses of the people; so far from giving unlimited extent to power, it confines it within the limits of reason, justice, and public advantage. In his lectures on the general history of civilization in Europe, M. Guizot, speaking of this right as proclaimed by. the Church, says: " The rights of liberty and political guarantees are combined with difficulty with the principle of religious royalty; but that principle in itself is elevated, moral, and salutary." (Lecture ix.) When men like M. Guizot, who have made these questions their special study, are so lamentably deceived on this point, who can be astonished that the same thing occurs to the generality of writers Before I go further, I will make one observation, which we ought always to have present to our minds. On these questions we continually hear mention made-of the schools of Bossuet and of Bonald; private names are put forward, sometimes in one way and sometimes in another. Much as I respect the merits of these men, and of others not less illustrious produced by the Catholic Church, yet I must observe that she is not responsible for any doctrines but those which she herself teaches; that she is not personified in any doctor in particular; and that being herself appointed by God himself to be the oracle of infallible truth in faith and morality, she does not permit the faithful to defer blindly to the mere word of any private man, however great may be his merit in science and in sanctity. If you wish to know what the Catholic Church teaches, consult the decisions of her Councils and her Pontiffs; consult also her doctors of distinguished and unsullied reputation; but beware of confounding the opinions of an author, however respectable he may be, with the doctrines of the Church and the voice of the Vicar of Jesus Christ. By this warning I do not mean to prematurely condemn the opinions of any one, but simply to put those on their guard who, little versed in ecclesiastical studies, might, in certain cases, confound revealed dogmas with what is mere human thought. Having premised this much, let us enter freely into the question. Wherein does this divine right, of which we hear so much, consist? In order to explain this matter completely, we must state the objects over which this right extends; for these objects being widely different, there will also be a great difference in the application made to them of the principle. A great number of questions present themselves in this very important matter; but it appears to me that they may all be reduced to these, which embrace the rest, viz. What is the origin of the civil power? How far does it extend? Is it lawful to resist it in any case? The first question is, What is the origin of the civil power.? How do we know that this power isfrom God? There is much confusion prevailing on these points; and certainly it is to be lamented, that at a time so disturbed as the present they should be misunderstood; for whatever may be said to the contrary, doctrines are never wholly laid aside, either in revolutions or in restorations; men's interests, no doubt, have great weight therein, but they are not left alone in the arena. The best way of forming clear ideas on these points is to have recourse to ancient authors, especially those whose doctrines have been respected for a long period of time, who continue to be respected down to this day, and who are looked upon as safe guides in the right interpretation of ecclesiastical doctrines. This way of studying the question which now occupies us ought to be acceptable to those even who entertain contempt for the writers of whom we speak; for we are now engaged more in seeking in what the doctrine consists, than in examining into its truth. Now for this purpose we cannot find witnesses better informed, or interpreters more competent, than men who have devoted their whole lives to the study of the doctrine. This last reflection is in no way contradictory to what we have said above, on the care which we ought to take not to confound the mere opinions of men 284 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICTY. with the doctrines of the Church; it only tends to remind us of the necessity which exists of perusing a certain class of authors, who are certainly not worthy of the'ungrateful neglect with which they are treated; indeed, it is impossible that their important labors, conscientiously pursued for so long a time, should produce no fruit. In order to understand the better the opinion of these writers on the matter which now occupies us, we ought to observe the difference which they make in the application of the general principle of divine right to the origin of the civil or to that of the ecclesiastical power. From this comparison there arises a bright light, which resolves and clears up all difficulties. Open the works of the most distinguished theologians, consult their treatises on the origin of the power of the Pope, and you will see that in establishing this power on divine right, they mean that it emanates from God, not only in a general sense, that is, inasmuch as all being comes from God; not only in a social sense, that is, inasmuch as the Church being a society, God has willed the existence of a power to govern it; but in a most special manner that God has Himself instituted this power, that He has Himself established its form,. that He has Himself pointed out the person, and that consequently the successor to the chair of St. Peter is of divine right the supreme pastor of the universal Church, having over the whole of this Church supreme honor and jurisdiction. With respect to the civil power, these authors speak thus. In the first place, all power comes from God; for power exists, and all existence comes from God; power is sovereignty, and God is the lord, the supreme master of all things; power is a right, and in God is found the source of all right; power is a moral movement, and God is the universal cause of all sorts of movements; power tends towards an exalted end, and God is the end of all creatures; His Providence ordains and directs all things with mercy and efficacy. Thus we see that St. Thomas, in his work De Regimine Princizpm, affirms that all power comes from God as supreme master, as may be shown in three ways: as it is a being, as it is a mover, and as it is an end. (Lib. 3, cap. 1.) As I am treating of this method of explaining the origin of power, I must pause for a moment to refute Rousseau, who, in the allusion which he made to this doctrine, showed that he did not understand it. He says, " All power comes from God, I allow; but all diseases also come from Him. Are we, therefore, to say that it is forbidden to call in a physician?" (Contrat Social, liv. i. c. 3.) It is true that one of the senses in which the divine origin of power is affirmed is, that all finite beings emanate from an infinite being; but this sense is not the only one. Indeed, theologians knew very well that this idea, by itself, did not imply its legitimacy, and that it extended as well to physical force; for as the author of the Contrat Social adds: " the pistol held by a robber in a wood is also a power." Rousseau, in this passage, has sacrificed the sense to show his ingenuity; the love of making a brilliant sally has seduced him into removing the question from its proper ground. It was easy, indeed, to see that, with respect to the civil power, men do not speak of a physical, but of a moral, a legitimate power; in any other way it would be in vain to seek for its origin: as well might they seek the source of riches, health, strength, courage, subtilty, or the other qualities which contribute to form the material force of all power. The question is with regard to the moral being which is called power; and in the moral order, illegitimate power is not power, it is not a being, it is nothing. Consequently, there is no need of seeking its origin in God, or in any thing else. Therefore, power emanates from God as the source of all right, justice, and legitimacy; and in considering power, not as a mere physical, but as a moral being, it is affirmed that it can come from God alone, who is the plenitude of all being. Not only is this doctrine, taken generally, above all difficulty, but it must be admitted by all who do not profess themselves atheists; they alone can call it in question. Let us now descend to particulars, and see PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 28.5 whether Catholic doctors teach any thing which is not perfectly reasonable even in the eyes of philosophers. Man, they say, was not created to live alone; his existence supposes a family; his inclinations urge him to form an alliance, without which the human race could not be perpetuated. Families are connected with each other by intimate and indestructible ties; they have common wants; none can insure happiness, or even preservation, without the aid of others. Therefore they are bound to enter into society. Society cannot exist without order, or order without justice; and both require a guardian, an interpreter, an executor. This is the civil power. God, who created man, and willed also his preservation, consequently willed the existence of society, and the power which it requires. Now the existence of the civil power is as conformable to the will of God as the existence of the paternal; if families have need of the paternal, society has no less need of the civil power. Our Lord has condescended to secure us from mistakes on this important point by telling us in the Scriptures, that all power emanates from Him, that we are obliged to obey it, that whoever resists it resists the Divine command. I seek in vain for an objection to this way of explaining the origin of society, and of the power which governs it. This doctrine preserves natural, human, and divine right; all these rights are connected, and support each other. The sublimity of the theory rivals its simplicity; revelation sanctions what was shown by the light of reason, and grace fortifies nature. Such, then, is the famous divine right, presented as a bugbear to the ignorant and unsuspecting, in order to make them believe that the Catholic Church, when she teaches the obligation of obeying the legitimate power, and founds this obligation on the law of God, proposes a dogma injurious to true human liberty. To hear some men ridicule the divine right of kings, one would say that we Catholics believed that certain individuals and families have received bulls of institution from Heaven, and that we are grossly ignorant of the history of the changes of the civil'power. If they had examined the matter more deeply, they would have found that, far from being liable to the reproach of such folly, we have only established a principle the necessity of which was acknowledged by all the legislators of antiquity, and that our belief is quite reconcilable with true philosophical doctrines and the events recorded by history. In support of what I have said, see with what admirable clearness St. Chrysostom explains this point in his 23d homily on the Epistle to the Romans: " There is no power that does not come from God." What do you say? Is every prince, then, appointed by God? I do not say that; for I do not speak of any prince in particular, but of the thing itself, that is, of the power itself: I affirm that the existence of principalities is the work of the divine wisdom, and that to it it is owing that all things are not given up to blind chance. Therefore it is that the Apostle does not say, " That there is no prince who does not come from God;" but he says, speaking of the thing in itself, ".There is no power which does not come from God." "Non est potestas, nisi a Deo. Quid dicis? Ergo omnis princeps a Deo constitutus?, Istud non dico. Non enim de quovis principe mihi sermo est, sed de re ipsa, id est de ipsa potestate. Quod enim principatus sint, quodque non simpliciter et temere cuncta ferantur, divinae sapientiae opus esse dico. Propterea non dicit: non enim princeps est nisi a Deo. Sed de re;psa disserit dicens: non est potestas nisi a Deo." (Horn. 23, in Epist. ad Rom.) It appears, from the words of St. John Chrysostom, that the meaning of divine right, according to Catholics, is, that there exists a power for the government of society, and that it is not abandoned to the mercy of passion and imagination. This doctrine, which insures public order, by establishing the obligation of obedience on motives of conscience, does not descend to the inferior questions, which do not affect the fundamental principle. It may perhaps be objected, that if we admit the interpretation of St John 286 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. Chrysostom, it was not necessary for the sacred text to teach that which reason so clearly dictated. To this our reply is two-fold: 1st, that the sacred Scripture expressly prescribes to us several obligations which nature imposes on us independently of all divine right, as to honor parents, not to kill, not to rob, and other things of the kind; 2d, that in the present case the Apostles had very good reason to recommend particularly obedience to legitimate power, and to sanction in a clear and conclusive manner this obligation, founded on the natural law itself. Indeed, the same St. Chrysostom tells us, " that at that time a very widely-spread opinion represented the Apostles as seditious men and innovators, laboring by their speeches and acts to bring about the downfall of laws." " Plurima tune temporis circumferebatur fama, traducens Apostolos veluti seditiosos rerumque novatores; qui omnia ad evertendum leges communes et facerent et dicerent." (Horn. 23, in Epist. ad Tim.) It was no doubt to this that St. Paul alluded when, admonishing the faithful of the obligation of obeying authority, he told them that " such was the will of God, that by acting thus they might put to silence the imprudence of foolish men." (Epist. i. c. 2.) We also know from St. Jerome, that in the beginning of the Church, some, hearing the Gospel liberty preached, imagined that universal liberty also was meant. The necessity of inculcating a duty, the fulfilment of which is indispensable for the preservation of society, will be clearly perceived if we consider with what ease an error so flattering to proud and rebellious minds might take root. After fourteen centuries had passed away, we see the error reproduced in the time of Wickliff and John IIuss. The Anabaptists made a dreadful application of it when they inundated Germany with blood. At a later period, the fanatical sectaries of England raised the greatest disorders and brought about fearful catastrophes by a similar doctrine, condemning alike the civil and ecclesiastical power. The religion of Jesus Christ, the law of peace and love, when preaching liberty, spoke of that liberty which draws us from the slavery of sin and the power of the devil, renders us co-heirs of Jesus Christ, and participators of grace and glory. But she was very far from propagating doctrines which could favor disorder, or subvert law and authority. It was, then, of the greatest importance to her to disprove the calumnies by which her enemies attempted to injure her; it was necessary for her to proclaim, by her words and acts, that the public interest had nothing to fear from her doctrines. We also see that after the Apostles had inculcated this sacred obligation on several occasions, the Fathers of the earliest times insist again and frequently on the same point. St. Polycarp, quoted by Eusebius, (lib. iv. Hist. cap. 15,) says, when speaking to the proconsul: "It is ordained to render to the magistrates and powers appointed by God the honor which we owe them." St. Justin, in his Apology for the Christians, also recalls the precept of Jesus Christ touching the payment of tributes: Tertullian, in. his Apology, chapter third, reproaches the Gentiles with the persecution they directed against the Christians, even at the time when the latter, with their hands raised to heaven, were praying for the safety of the emperors. The zeal of the saints who were charged with the instruction and direction of the faithful succeeded in inculcating this precept so well, that the Christians were everywhere a model of submission and obedience Thus Pliny, writing to the Emperor Trajan, avowed that, religion excepted, he could not accuse them of being at all wanting in the fulfilment of the laws and imperial edicts. Nature herself has pointed out the persons in whom resides the paternal power; the wants of the family mark the limits of this power; the feelings of the heart prescribe its object and regulate its conduct. In society it is otherwise: the rights of the civil power are tossed about by the storms of human events; here this right resides in one person, there in several; to-day it belongs PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 287 to one family, to-morrow to another; one day it is exercised under one form, the next under another very different. The infant who weeps at his mother's bosom reminds her of the obligation of nourishing and watching over it; woman, weak and unsupported, calls unmistakably on man to protect her and her child; youth, without strength to sustain or knowledge to direct itself, shows parents their obligation of care and guardianship. We see clearly the will of God; the order of nature forcibly expresses it; the tenderest feelings are its echo and interpreter; we do not require any thing else to show us what is the will of God; we do not need any refinement to convince us that the parental power is from above. The rights and duties of parents and children are written in characters as distinct as they are beautiful. But where shall we find, with respect to the civil power, an expression as unequivocal? If power comes from God, by what means does he communicate it? In what channel is it conveyed? This leads us to other secondary questions, which all conduce to the explanation and solution of the principal question. Was there ever a man who by natural right found himself invested with civil power? It is clear that in this case power would have no other origin than paternal authority; that is to say, in that case, the civil power ought to be considered as an amplification of that authority, as a transformation of domestic into civil power. We immediately see the difference between the domestic and the social order, their separate objects, the diversity, of rules by which they must be regulated, and we see how different are the means which they both use for their government. I do not deny that the type of society is found in the family, and that society is in the most desirable condition when it most resembles the family in command and in obedience; but mere analogies do not suffice to establish rights, and it always remains indubitable that those of the civil power must not be confounded with those of the paternal. On the other hand, the nature of things shows that Providence, in ordaining the destinies of the world, did not establish the paternal as the source of the civil. Indeed, we do not see how such a power could have been transmitted, and the legitimacy of its claims have been justified. We can easily understand the limited rule of an old man, governing a society, composed of two or three generations only, who were descended from him; but as soon as this society increased, extended to several countries, and consequently was divided and subdivided, the patriarchal power must have disappeared, its exercise must have become impossible, and we can no longer understand how the pretenders to the throne could come to an understanding with each other and the rest of the people, to justify and legitimize their rule. The theory which acknowledges the paternal as the origin of the civil power may be as promising as you please; it may sustain itself on the example of the patriarchal government, which we observe in the cradle of society; but there are two things against it. First, it asserts, but does not prove; second, it has no means of attaining the end for which it was intended, viz. the consolidation of government, for it cannot establish itself by proving its legitimacy. The greatest of kings and the humblest of subjects.equally know that they are the sons of Noe; nothing more I have not been able to find this theory either in St. Thomas, or in any of the other principal theologians; and to go still higher, I do not know that it can find any authority in the doctrines of the Fathers, in the tradition of the Church, or in Scripture itself. It is consequently a mere philosophical opinion, of which the explanation and proof belong to those who advance it. Catholicity says nothing either for or against it. It is then demonstrated that the civil power does not reside in any man of natural right, and on the other hand, we know that power comes from God. Who receives this power from God, and how does he receive it? It is necessary first to observe, that the Catholic Church, while acknowledging the divine 288 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. origin of the civil power, an origin which is expressly stated in Scripture, doel not define any thing either as to the form of this power, or the means which God employs in communicating it. So that after the Catholic doctrine is established, there still remains to be examined and discussed, who immediately receives the power, and how it is transmitted? This is acknowledged by theologians when they have treated of this matter; this should be enough to remove the prejudices of those who consider the doctrine of the Church on this point as conducive to popular degradation. The Church teaches the obligation of obeying legitimate authority, and adds that the power which it exercises emanates from God; this doctrine is as applicable to republics as to absolute monarchies, and does not prejudge either the forms of government or the particular claims of legitimacy. As to these latter questions they cannot be answered in general terms; they depend upon a variety of circumstances into which the general principles which are the foundation of the good order and peace of society cannot enter. I think it is so important to give clear ideas on this point, and to state the doctrines of the most distinguished Catholic divines, that I consider it necessary to devote an entire chapter to this subject. CHAPTER XLIX. THE ORIGIN OF SOCIETY, ACCORDING TO CATHOLIC DIVINES. THERE is nothing more instructive or more interesting, than the study of public law in those writers who, pretending not to pass for statesmen, and entertaining no views of ambition, express themselves without flattery and without bitterness; and explain these matters with as much calmness and tranquillity as they would theories of rare application and limited extent. At the present time it is almost impossible to open a book without immediately perceiving to which of the two contending parties the author belongs; it seldom happens that his ideas are not affected by passion, or adapted to serve particular designs; and it not unfrequently happens that, without conviction, he speaks according to the dictates of his interest. It is not so with the old writers, of whom we are speaking. Let us render them at least this justice; that their opinions are conscientious, their language loyal and sincere; and whatever may be the judgment with respect to them, whether we consider them as real sages, or as ignorant men and fanatics, we cannot call in question their sincerity; that they are animated by a religious idea, that they develop a philosophical system, that their pens are the faithful interpreters of their thoughts. Rousseau attempts to seek the origin of society, and of the civil power; and begins the first chapter of his work with these words: " Man is born free, and he is everywhere in fetters." Do you not immediately perceive the tribune under the mantle of the philosopher? Do you not observe that, instead of addressing himself to the reason, the writer appeals to the passions; and wounds the most susceptible of them-viz. pride. It is in vain for the philosopher to endeavor to make us believe that he does not intend to reduce his doctrines to practice; his language betrays his design. In another place, where he attempts nothing less than to give advice to a great nation, he has hardly begun when he holds over Europe the torch of an incendiary. " When we read ancient history, we fancy ourselves transported to another world, and among other beings. What have the French, the English, the Russians, in common with the.Greeks and Romans?'Hardly any thing but the form. The great souls of the latter appear to the others as exaggerations of history. How can they, who feel themselves to be so little, imagine that such PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH, CATHOLICITY. 289 great men ever existed? They did exist, however; and they were human like ourselves. What hinders our being men like them? Our prejudices, our low philosophy, and grovelling passions, combined with the egotism of men's hearts, by absurd institutions, directed by men of little minds." (Considerations on the Government of Poland, &c., Chap. 2.) Do you not observe the poison conveyed in these words of the publicist? Ard is it not palpable that he had something more in view than enlightening the mind? See with what address he attempts to produce a feeling of irritation, by harsh and indecent reproaches. Let us take the opposite extreme of the comparison, and see in how different a tone St. Thomas of Aquin, in his work De Regimine Princpumn, begins his explanation on the same subject, and gives directions for good government..(a)t "If man," he says, "was intended to live alone, like many animals, he would not require any one to govern him; every man would be his own king, under the supreme command of God; inasmuch as he would govern himself by the light.of reason given him by the Creator. But it is in the nature of man to be a social and political animal, living in community, differently from all other animals; a thing which is clearly shown by the necessities of his nature. Nature has provided for other animals food; skins for a covering, means of defence,-as teeth, horns, claws,-or, at least, speed in flight; but she has not endowed man with any of those qualities; and instead she has given him reason, by which, with the assistance of his hands, he can procure what he wants. But to procure this, one man alone is not enough; for he is not in a condition to preserve his own life; it is, therefore, in man's nature to live in society. Moreover, nature has granted to other animals the power of discerning what is useful or injurious to them: thus the sheep has a natural horror of his enemy the wolf. There are also certain animals who know by nature the herbs which are medicinal to them, and other things which are necessary for their preservation. But man has not naturally the knowledge which is requisite for the support of life, except in society; inasmuch as the aid of reason is capable of leading from universal principles to the knowledge of particular things, which are necessary for life. Thus, then, since it is impossible for man alone to obtain all this knowledge, it is necessary that he should live in society, one aiding another; each one applying to his own task; for example, some in medicine; some in one way, and some in another. This is shown with great clearness in that faculty peculiar to man, language-which enables him to communicate his thoughts to others. Indeed, brute animals mutually communicate their feelings; as the dog communicates his anger by barking, and other animals their passions by various -ways. But man, with respect to his fellows, is more coimmunicative than any other animal; even than those who are the most inclined to live in union, as cranes, ants, and bees. In this sense, Solomon says, in Ecclesiastes:' It is better, therefore, that two should be together than one; for they have the advantage of their society.' Thus, if it be natural for man to live in society, it is necessary that some one should direct the multitude; for if many were united, and each one did as he thought proper, they would fall to pieces, unless somebody looked after the public good, as would be the case with the human body, and that of any other animal, if there did not exist a power to watch over the welfare of all the members. Thus Solomon says:'Thus, where there is no one to govern, the people will be dispersed.' In man himself the soul directs the body; and in the soul, the feelings of anger and concupiscence are governed by the reason. Among the members of the body, there is one I This subject is so important, so delicate, that I shall not be satisfied with giving a translation of the passages which I quote, however careful I may be to render them exact and literal, at the risk of irregularity of style and violation of the idiom of our language. I wish, therefore, to set before the reader the original texts themselves, desiring him to judge from them and not from my version. [They will be found in the Appendix.] 37 Z 290 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLCITY. principal one, which directs all; as the heart or the head. There ought, then, to be in every multitude some governing power." (St. Thomas, De Regimine Pt'izcipum, lib. i. cap. 1.) This passage, so remarkable for profound wisdom, clearness of ideas, solidity of principles, vigor and exactness of deductions, contains, in a few words, all that can be said with respect to the origin of society, and of power; to the rights enjoyed by the latter, and the obligations incumbent upon it: the matter being considered in general, and by the light of reason alone. In the first place, it was required to show, with clearness, the necessity of the existence of society; and this the holy doctor does by this very simple reasoning-man is of such a nature that he cannot live alone, and then he has need of being united to his fellows. If a proof of this fundamental truth be required, it is found in the fact that he is endowed with speech; this is a sign that by nature he is destined to communicate with other men, and consequently to live in society. After having proved this invincible necessity, it remained to demonstrate a necessity not less absolute-viz. the necessity of a power to govern society. In order to make this demonstration, St. Thomas does not invent extravagant systems, or unfounded theories; he does not appeal to absurd suppositions; he is satisfied with a reason founded on the nature of things, dictated by common sense, and supported by daily experience-viz. that in all bodies of men, there is a director requisite; since, without him, disorder, and even dispersion, are inevitable; for in all societies there must be a chief. It must be allowed that this clear and simple explanation enables us to understand the theory of the origin of society much better than all the subtilties of explicit and implicit pacts; it is enough for a thing to be founded on nature itself, for it to be viewed as demonstrated as a real necessity, in order that its existence may be easily conceived; why then seek, by subtilties and suppositions, what is apparent at the first view? Let us not, however, suppose that St. Thomas does not acknowledge divine right, or is ignorant that the obligation of obedience to power may be founded on it: far from it; this truth he establishes in many places in his works; but he does not forget the natural and the human law, which, on this point, are combined and allied with the divine, in such a way, that the latter is only a confirmation of, and gives a sanction to, the others. We ought thus to interpret the passages in which the holy doctor attributes the civil power to human law, considering this law with that of grace. For example, when examining whether infidels can have dominion or'supremacy over the faithful, he says: (b) " It is necessary here to consider that dominion or supremacy is introduced by virtue of human law; the distinction between the faithful and infidels, is by divine law. Divine law, which emanates from grace, does not take away human law, which is founded on the law of natural reason; therefore the distinction between the faithful and infidels, considered in itself, does not take away the dominion or supremacy of infidels over the faithful." When inquiring, in another place, if the prince who has apostatized from the faith by this fact loses dominion over his subjects, so that they are no longer called upon to obey him, he expresses himself thus:(c) "As has been said before, infidelity does not destroy dominion itself; for dominion was introduced by the law of nations, which is human right; while the distinction between the faithful and infidels is by a divine, which does not take away the hulnan right." Again; when examining if man is obliged to obey another man, he says: (d) " As natural actions proceed from natural powers, so human operations proceed from the human will. In natural things, it was necessary that inferior things should be brought into their respective operations by the excellence of the natural virtue which God has given to superior things. In the same way, also, it is necessary that in human things, those which are superior should urge on the PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 291 nferior, by the force of authority ordained by God. To move, by means of reason and the will, is to command; and as, by virtue of the natural order instituted by God, inferior things in nature are necessarily subject to the motion of superior things, so also, in human things, those which are inferior ought, by natural add divine right, to obey those which are superior." On the same question, St. Thomas examines whether obedience is a special virtue, and he answers, (e) "That to obey a superior is a duty conformable to the divine order communicated to things." In the 6th article, he states the question whether Christians are obliged to obey the secular powers, and says: (f). "The faith of Christ is the principle and cause of justice, according to what is said in the Epistle to the Romans, chap. iii.'the justice of God by the faith of Jesus Christ.' Thus the faith of Christ does not take away the law of justice, but rather confirms it. This law wills that inferiors should obey their superiors; for without that, human society could not be preserved; and thus the faith of Christ does not exempt the faithful from the obligation of obeying the secular powers." I have quoted at some length these passages from St. Thomas, in order to show that he does not understand the divine right in the sense in which the enemies of Catholicity have made it a reproach to us; but that, properly speaking, while he adheres to a dogma so expressly taught in the sacred text, he considers the Divine law as a confirmation and sanction of the natural and human law. We know that for six centuries Catholic doctors have regarded the authority of St. Thomas as worthy of the highest respect in all that concerns faith and morality. We have just seen that this angel of the schools establishes, as founded on the natural, human, and divine law, the duty of obeying authority, affirming that the source of all power is found in God, without entering into the question whether God communicates this power directly or indirectly to those who exercise it, and le.ving a vast field where human opinions may debate without violating the purity of faith. In the same way, the most eminent doctors who have succeeded him in the Catholic pulpits have contented themselves with establishing and enforcing the doctrine, without rashly making use of the authority of the Church in its application. To prove this I will here insert some passages from distinguished theologians. Cardinal Bellarmin expresses himself in these words.: (g) "It is certain that public authority comes from God, from whom alone emanate all things good and lawful, as is proved by St. Augustin throughout almost all the forty-five books of the City of God. Indeed, the Wisdom of God, in the Book of Proverbs, chap. viii., cries out,'It is by Me that kings reign;'-and further on,'It is by Me that princes rule.' The prophet Daniel, in the second chapter,'The God of htaven has given thee the kingdom and the empire;' and the same prophet, in the fourth chapter,'Thy dwelling shall be with cattle and with wild beasts, and thou shalt eat grass as an ox, and shalt be wet with the dew of heaven, and seven years shall pass over thee, till thou know that the Most High ruleth over the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will.'" After having proved, by the authority of the Holy Scriptures, this dogma, viz. that the civil power comes from God, the illustrious writer explains the sense in which it ought to be understood: (h) " But," he says, "it is necessary to make some observations here. In the first place, political power; considered in general, and without descending in particular to monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy, emanates immediately from God alone; for being necessarily annexed to the nature of man, it proceeds from Him who has made that nature. Besides, that power is by natural law, since it does not depend upon men's consent, since they must have a government whether they wish it or not, under pain of desiring the destruction of the human race, which is against the inclination of nature. It is thus that the law of nature is divine law, and government is introduced by divine law; and it is particularly this which the 292 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. Apostle seems to have had in view when he says to the Romans, chap. xiii.,' He who resists authority, resists the ordinance of God.'" This doctrine destroys all the theory of Rousseau, who makes the existence of society and the right of the civil power depend on human conventions; it also overturns the absurd systems of some Protestants, and other heretics, their predecessors, who, in the name of Christian liberty, pretended to condemn all authority. No! the existence of society does not depend on the consent of man; society is not his work; it satisfies an imperious necessity, which, if it were not satisfied, would entail the destruction of the human race. God, when he created man, did not deliver him to the mercy of chance; He has given him the right of fulfilling his necessities, and has imposed on him the care of his own preservation as a duty; therefore the existence of the human race includes also the existence of government, and the obligations of obedience. There is no theory so clear, simple, and solid. Shall it be called the enemy and oppressor of human freedom? Is it any disgrace to man to acknowledge himself the creature of God? to confess that he has received from Him what is necessary for his preservation? Is the intervention of God any infringement of human liberty, and cannot man be free without being an Atheist? It is absurd to say there is any thing favorable to servitude in a doctrine which tells us " God wills not that you should live like wild beasts: IHe commands you to be united in society, and for this purpose He orders you to live in submission to an authority legitimately established." If this be called servitude and oppression, we desire this servitude, we willingly give up the right which is pretended to be granted to us of wandering in the woods like wild beasts: true liberty does not exist in man when he is stripped of the finest attribute of his nature, that of acting in conformity with reason. Such is the explanation of divine right according to the illustrious commentator whom we have just quoted; let us now see the applications which he makes of it, and learn in what way, according to him, God communicates the civil power to those who are charged with its exercise. After the words quoted above, -Bellarmin continues: (i) " In the second place, observe, that this power resides immediately, as in its subject, in all the multitude, for it is by divine right. The divine right has not given this power to any man in particular, for it has given it to the multitude; besides, the positive law being taken away, there is no reason why one should rule rather than another, among a great number of equal men; therefore power belongs to the whole multitude. In fine, society should be a perfect state; it should have the power of self-preservation, and, consequently, that of chastising the disturbers of the peace." This doctrine has nothing in common with the foolish assertions of Rousseau and his followers; no one who has studied public law will confound things so different. Indeed, what the Cardinal establishes in the passage quoted, viz. that power resides immediately in the multitude, is not in opposition to what he himself taught a little before, when he said that it comes from God, and is not owing to human conventions. His doctrine may be conveyed in this form. Suppose a number of men without any positive law; there is then no reason why any one of them should have a right to rule the rest. Nevertheless, this law exists, nature itself indicates its necessity, God ordains a government; therefore there exists among this number of men the legitimate power of instituting one. To explain more clearly the ideas of this illustrious theologian, let us suppose that a considerable number of families, perfectly equal among themselves and absolutely independent of each other, were thrown by a tempest on a desert island. The vessel being destroyed, they have no hope either of returning home or of pursuing their journey. All communication with the rest of mankind is become impossible: we ask, whether these families could live without government? No. Has any one among them a right of governing the rest? Clearly not. Can any individual among them pretend to such a right? Certainly not. Have they a PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 293 right to appoint the government of which they stand in need? Certainly they have. Therefore in this multitude, represented by the fathers of families or in some other way, resides the civil power, together with the right of transmitting it to one or more persons, according as they shall judge proper. It is difficult to make any valid objection to the doctrine placed in this point of view. That this is the real meaning of his words is clearly shown by the observations which follow: (k) "In the third place," he says, "observe that the multitude transfers this power to one person or more by natural right; for the republic not being able to exercise it by itself, is obliged to communicate it to one or to a limited number; and it is thus that the power of princes, considered in general, is by natural and divine law; and the whole human race, if assembled together, could not establish the contrary, viz. that princes or governors did not exist." But the fundamental principle being once established, Bellarmin allows to society an ample right of appointing the form of government which they think proper. This ought to refute the accusations made against the Catholic doctrine, of favoring servitude; for if all forms of government are reconcilable with this doctrine, it is evident that it cannot justly be accused of being incompatible with liberty. Hear how the same author continues on this point: (1) " Observe, in the fourth place," he says, " that particular forms of government are by the law of nations, and not by divine law, since it depends upon the consent of the multitude to place over themselves a king, consuls, or other magistrates, as is clear; and, for a legitimate reason, they can change royalty into aristocracy, or into democracy, or vice versa, as it was done in Rome. " Observe, in the fifth place, that it follows, from what we have said, that this power in particular comes from God, but by means of the counsel and election of man, like all other things which belong to the law of nations; for the law of nations is, as it were, a conclusion drawn from the natural law by human reasoning. Thence follows a two-fold difference between the political and the ecclesiastical power: first, difference with regard to the subject, since political power is in the multitude, and ecclesiastical in a man immediately, as in its subject; second, difference with respect to the cause, since political power, considered generally, is by divine law, and in particular by the law of nations, while the ecclesiastical power is in every way by divine law, and emanates immediately from God." These last words show clearly how correct I was in saying that theologians understand the divine law in a very different manner, according as it is applied to the civil or to the ecclesiastical power. It must not be supposed that the doctrine now stated is peculiar to Cardinal Bellarmin; the generality of theologians follow him on this point; but I have preferred quoting his authority, because he, being so strongly attached to the See of Rome, if the latter were imbued with the principles of despotism, as it has been charged with being, no doubt, something of them would appear in the writings of this theologian. It is easy to anticipate the objection that will be made to this explanation; we shall be told that Bellarmin, having for his object the exaltation of the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, with this view attempted to lower the power of kings, in order to take away or diminish all opposition to the authority of the Popes. I will not now enter into an examination of the opinions of Bellarmin with respect to the two powers-this would be foreign to my design; besides, such points of civil and ecclesiastical law excited at that time great interest, on account of circumstances at that period, but now very little, on account of the new course which events have taken, and the great change which has been brought about in ideas. I shall, nevertheless, reply to this supposed difficulty by two very simple observations. The first is, that we have not to inquire the intentions of Bellarmin in explaining his doctrine, but in what that doctrine consists. Whatever his motive may have been, we see an author of vast renown, z2 294 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. whose opinion has great weight in Catholic schools, and who wrote at Rome, where, so far from his writings being condemned, he was surrounded with respect and honor: this theologian, I say, explaining the doctrine of the Church on the Divine origin of the civil power, does it in such terms that, while giving sacred guarantees for the good order of society, he does not infringe on the liberty of the people; this is the vindication of Rome against the attacks made upon her. The second is, that Cardinal Bellarmin does not here profess an isolated opinionthe generality of theologians are on his side; therefore, all that can be said against him personally proves nothing against his doctrines. Among the many authors that I could quote, I will select some who will represent many different periods: and as the obligation of being brief confines me within narrow limits, I beg the reader himself to examine the works of Catholic theologians and moralists; he will thus make sure of becoming acquainted with their thoughts on this subject. Hear how Suarez explains the origin of power: (n) "'Herein," he says, "the common opinion seems to be, that God, inasmuch as He is the author of nature, gives the power; so that men are, so to speak, the matter and subject capable of this power; while God gives the form by giving the power." (De Leg. lib. iii. c. 3.) He goes on to develop his doctrine, relying on the reason usually made use of in this matter; and when he comes to draw the conclusions, he explains how society, which, according to him, receives the power immediately from God, communicates it to certain \persons. He adds: (n) "In the second place, it follows from what has been said, that the civil power, whenever it is found in a man or a prince, has emanated according to usual and legitimate law, from the people and the community, either directly or remotely, and that it cannot otherwise be justly possessed." (Ibid. cap. 4.) Perhaps some of my readers may not know that a Spanish Jesuit maintained against the King of England in person, the doctrine that princes receive power mediately from God, and immediately from the people. This Jesuit is Suarez himself, and the book to which I allude is called, (o) " Defence of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith against the errors of the Anglican sect; accompanied by a Reply to the Apology for the Oath of Fidelity, and to the monitary Preface published by the most serene James, King of England. By P. D. Francois Suarez, Professor at the University of Coimbra; addressed to the most serene Kings and Princes of the Christian world." In the third book, chapter second, where he discusses the question, Whether the political sovereignty comes immediately from God or from divine institution, Suarez says: " Here the most serene King not only gives a new and singular opinion, but also acrimoniously attacks Cardinal Bellarmin, for having affirmed that Kings have not received authority immediately from God like the Popes. He himself affirms that Kings hold their power not from the people, but immediately from God; and he attempts to support his opinion by arguments and examples the value of which I shall examine in the next chapter. Although this controversy does not immddiately concern the dogmas of faith (for we have nothing in reference to it either in the Scriptures or in the Fathers), it may nevertheless be well to discuss and explain it carefully; 1. because it might possibly lead to error in other dogmas; 2. because the above opinion of the King, as he maintains and explains it, is new, singular, and apparently invented to exalt the temporal-at the expense of the spiritual power; and 3. because we consider the opinion of the illustrious Bellarmin ancient, received, true, and necessary." But we must not attribute these opinions to the circumstances of the times, nor suppose that they disappeared from the schools of theologians as soon as they were advanced. In support of them, a multitude of authors might very easily be cited, who would show that Suarez was correct in saying that the opinion of Belarmin was received and ancient; they would, moreover, show PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY 295 that this doctrine continued to be admitted as a matter of course, without any doubt of its orthodoxy, or of its containing any thing dangerous to the stability of monarchies. In proof of what is here adduced, I will cite passages from distinguished authors, proving that at Rome this mode of explaining the light divine has never been called in question; and that in France and Spain, where absolute monarchy had taken so deep root, this opinion was no longer regarded as dangerous to the stability of thrones. A long period had already elapsedthe critical position which might more or less influence the direction of ideas had consequently disappeared, yet theologians still maintained the same doctrines. Cardinal Gotti, who wrote in the early part of the last century, gives, in his Treatise upon Laws, the above opinion as previously admitted, without even attempting to confirm it. (p) In the Mpral Theology of Herman Busenbaum, enlarged by St. Alphonsus Liguori, book 1st, second Treatise upon Laws, (chap. i. dub. 2, ~ 104,) it is expressly said: " It is certain that the power of making laws exists among men, but as far as civil laws are concerned, this power belongs naturally to no individual. It belongs to the community, who transfer it to one or to more, that by them the community itself may be governed." Should any one say that I quote the Jesuits only, or suspect that these doctrines are mere casuistry, I will cite remarkable passages from other theologians, who are neither casuists nor prepossessed in favor of the Jesuits. Father Daniel Concina, who wrote at Rome about the middle of the last century, supports the same doctrine as generally admitted; in his Thgologie chretienne dogmaticomorale, Roman edition, 1768, he expresses himself as follows: (q) "'All writers generally assert that the origin of supreme power is of God, as Solomon declares in the Book of Proverbs, c. viii., saying, By Me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things:' as truly as subordinate princes are dependent upon the supreme temporal majesty, so, in like manner, this majesty itself must depend upon the supreme King and Lord of lords. Theologians and jurists dispute whether this supreme power comes immediately from God, or merely in an indirect manner. Many affirm that it emanates immediately from God, because it cannot emanate from men, whether we consider them collectively or individually; for all fathers of families are equal, and each possesses, with regard to his own family, a power merely economical; from which it follows, that they cannot confer upon others that civil and political power which they themselves do not possess. Moreover, if the community, in its superiority, had delegated to one or to more the power here under discussion, it could revoke it at pleasure, for the superior is always at liberty to withdraw the facilities he has delegated to another, and this would be very injurious to society. " In support of the opposite opinion, many answery and certainly with more probability and truth, that, in reality, all power proceeds from God, but that it is not delegated to any particular individual directly, unless by consent of civil society. That this power is not vested directly in any individual, but in the entire collection of men, is what St. Thomas expressly teaches (1, 2, qu. 90, art. 3, ad 2, et qu. 97, art. 3, ad 3), followed by Dominic Soto (lib. i. qu. 1, art. 3); by Ledesma (2 part. qu. 18, art. 3); and by Covarruvias (in Pract. cap. i.). The reason of this is evident; for as all men are born free with regard to civil society, no one has any civil power over another, since this power exists not in each, nor in any of them in a fixed manner; it follows, therefore, that it is vested in the whole collection of men. God does not covnfer this power by any special act distinct from creation, but it is a property of right reason, inasmuch as right reason dictates that men, united in one moral whole, shall prescribe, by express or tacit consent, in what manner society shall be governed, preserved, and upheld." It is proper to remark, that Father Concina, speaking here of tacit,r express cowsent, has not in view the actual existence of society, nor the authority by 296 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. which it is governed, but merely the mode of exercising this authority for the direction, preservation, and defence of society. Hence, his opinion coincides with that of Bellarmin; society and power are of right divine and natural, but the mode of organizing society, and of transmitting and exercising authority, is human. After having shown in what sense we are to understand that civil power comes from God, Concina resumes the question which he had proposed, viz. in what manner authority exists in kings, princes, and other supreme heads of government. He proceeds as follows: (r) " It is evident, therefore, that the power existing in the prince, the king, or in many persons whether nobles or plebeians, emanates from the community itself, directly or indirectly; for, if it came immediately from God, it would be manifested to us in a particular manner, as in the instances of Saul and. David, who were chosen by God. We consider, therefore, erroneous, the doctrine that God confers this power immediately and directly upon the king, the prince, or any other head of supreme government whatever, to the exclusion of the tacit or express consent of the public. This discussion, it is true, is one of words rather than of things, for this power comes from God, the author of nature, inasmuch as He has ordained and appointed that the public itself shall confer upon one or more the power of supreme government, for the preservation and defence of society. The nomination of the person or persons appointed to command being once made, their power is said to come from God, because society itself is bound by natural and divine right to obey him who commands. In fact, it is the will of God that society shall be governed, whether by one individual or by several. In this manner the several opinions of theologians are reconciled with each other, and the oracles of Scripture appear in their true sense:'He that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God.''There is no power but from God.''Be subject, therefore, to every human creature for God's sake, whether to the king,' &c.'Thou wouldst not have any power against Me, unless it were given thee from above.' These testimonies, and others of a like nature, ought to convince'us that all is ordained and directed by God, the supreme Mediator. This, however, does not exclude the operations of human institutions, as is very justly interpreted by St. Augustin and St. John Chrysostom." Father Billuart, who lived in the early part of last century, and, consequently, at the same epoch when the highly monarchical traditions of Louis XIV. were in all their vigor, expressed the same ideas on this subject as the theologians above cited. In his work on Moral Theology, which, for almost a century, has been widely circulated, he thus expresses himself: (s) " I maintain, in the first place, that legislative power belongs to the community, or to its representative." After quoting St. Thomas and St. Isidore, he continues: " Reason proves, that to make laws belongs of right to him who is appointed to watch over the public good; for the maintenance of the public good, as has been already said, is the end and aim of the laws. It is the duty of the community, or of its ruler, to watch over the public good; for as the welfare of an individual is a fit object for individual agency, so is the public good for the agency of the community, or of him to whom its functions have been delegated; the power of legislation, therefore, is vested in the community, or in its representative. I will confirm what is here advanced. The law has the power of commanding and of coercing in such a manner that no individual has any authority to command or restrain the multitude. This authority belongs exclusively to the community, or to its representative; to these, therefore, legislative power belongs." Having made these reflections, Billuairt starts another difficulty with regard to the extreme extension which he appears to have given to the rights of the multitude. On this occasion he developes his system still further. (t) "It will be objected," says he," that the right of commanding and compelling is vested in the superior, and cannot belong to the community, since it is PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 297 not superior to itself. To this I reply: Society, in one sense, is not superior to itself, but in another it is. The community may be considered collectively as one moral body, and in this sense it is superior.to itself as considered distri butively in each of its members. Again; it may be considered as acting in the place of God, from whom emanates all legislative power, as it is said in Proverbs:'By Me kings reign and the lawgivers decree just things;' or as capable of being governed conformably to the public good. In the former case, it is superior and legislative; in the latter, inferior and subject to the law." As this explanation might appear somewhat obscure, Billuart proceeds to investigate more profoundly the origin of society and of civil power. He endeavors to show how the natural, the divine, and the human laws agree on this point, defining what belongs to each. He then continues as follows: (u) " To render this more clear, it must be observed, that man/ unlike other animals, is born destitute of many things necessary both for body and soul, and that for these he is indebted to society and the assistance of his fellow-mortals; consequently he is, by his very nature, a social animal. This society, which nature and reason prescribe to him as indispensable, cannot long exist without some power to direct it, according to what is said in Proverbs:'Where there is no governor, the people will come to ruin.' Whence it follows, that God, who has given this nature, has also given the power of governing and of legislating. He, in fact, who gives the form, gives, at the same time, all that such form necessarily requires. But as it is not possible for this executive and legislative power to be exercised by the entire multitude, since it would be difficult for all and each forming this multitude to assemble on all occasions when the affairs of the commonweal are to be discussed, or laws to be established, it is usual for the multitude to transfer its right or governing power, either to a number of people selected from all classes, and bearing the name of a democracy; or to a select number of the nobles, which takes the name of an aristocracy; or to one alone, for himself only, or for his successors, by virtue of the right of hereditary succession, which is styled a monarchy. From which it is evident that all power comes from God, as the Apostle says, in his Epistle to the Romans, chap. xiii. This power resides in the community, directly and by natural riglht, but in kings and other rulers merely indirectly and by human right, unless God confers it directly upon certain individuals, as He did upon Moses over the Jews, and as Christ has conferred it upon the Supreme Pontiff over the whole Church." What is still more remarkable, our absolute monarchies were never alarmed at these theological doctrines, not only previous to the French Revolution, but since that Revolution, and up to the time commonly styled with us the fatal decade, (from 1823 to 1833, the latter part of the reign of Ferdinand VII.) It is well known that during that period the Compendium Salmaticense (Compendium of Salamanca) had a most favorable reception in this country, and served as a text-book among the professors of ethics in the colleges and universities. Ye who are continually declaiming against this epoch, imagining, without doubt, that in those days no other doctrines than those in favor of the most arrant despotism could be circulated, listen to what is said in the above book, which was then placed in the hands of every youth destined to the ecclesiastical state. After having established the existence of a civil legislative power, the author thus proceeds: (x) " You will ask me, in the second place, whether the prince receives this civil legislative power immediately from God. I reply, It is universally admitted that princes receive this power from God; but, at the same time, it is maintained with more truth, that they do not receive it directly, but through the medium of the people's consent; for all men are naturally equal, and there is no natural distinction of superiority or inferiority. Since nature has not given any individual power over another, God has conferred this powex upon the community; which, as it may think it more proper to be ruled by one 38 298 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. or by many appointed persons, transfers it to one or to many, that by them it may be ruled; according to St. Thomas (1, 2, qu. 90, art. 3, ad 2). From this natural principle arises the variety in the forms of civil government; for if a state transfers all its power to a single individual, this government is termed monarchical; if it confers it upon the nobles of the nation, it takes the name of an aristocracy; if the people or the state retain this power in their own hands, the civil government is styled a democracy. Princes, therefore, receive from God the power of commanding; for supposing the election made by the whole state, God confers upon the prince the power which was vested in the community. Whence it follows, that the prince rules and governs in the name of God, and whoever resists him resists the ordinance of God, according to the words of the Apostle above cited." CHAPTER L. ON THE RIGHT DIVINE, ACCORDING TO THE CATHOLIC DOCTORS. THE doctrine of the right divine, considered in its relation to society, presents to our notice two particular points which this doctrine contains: 1. The origin of civil power; 2. The mode in which God communicates this power. The former point is a question of doctrine. No Catholic can entertain any doubt upon it. The second is open to discussion; and various opinions may bo formed upon it, without interfering with faith. With regard to the right divine, considered in itself, true philosophy agrees with Catholicity. In fact, if civil power comes not from God, to what source can we trace its origin? Upon what solid principle can we support it? If the man who exercises it does not rest upon God the legitimacy of his power, no title will avail to uphold his right. It will be radically and irretrievably null. On the contrary, supposing authority to come from God, our duty to submit to it becomes evident, and our dignity is not in the least hurt by the submission; but, in the other supposition, we see only force, craft, tyranny, but no reason or justice; perhaps a necessity for submission, but no obligation. By what title does any man pretend to command us? Because he is possessed of superior intellect? Who had the right of adjudging to him the palm? Besides, this superiority does not constitute a right; in some instances its direction might be useful to us, but it will not be obligatory. Is it because he is stronger than we? In that case the elephant ought to be king of the entire world. Is it because he is more wealthy than we? Reason and justice exist not in metal. The rich man is born naked, and his riches will not descend with him into the tomb. Upon earth they have enabled him to acquire power; but they do not confer upon him any right to exercise it over others. Shall it consist in certain faculties conferred on him by others? who has constituted other men our proxies? where is their consent? who has collected their votes? and how can either we or they flatter ourselves that we possess faculties equal to the exercise of civil power? and if we do not possess them, how can we delegate them? We must here consider the doctrine which places the origin of civil power in the will of men, supposing that this power is the result of a pact, by which individuals have agreed to submit to the retrenchment of a part of their natural liberty, in order to enjoy the benefits of society. According] to this system, the rights of the civil power, as well as the duties of the subject, are alike founded on a pact, differing from other contracts only in the nature and extent of its object; so that, in this case, power would emanate from God merely in a general sense, just as all rights and duties emanate from Him. Those writers who thus explain the origin of power, do not always agree with Rousseau. The PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 299 Contrat of the philosopher of Geneva has nothing to do with the pact spoken of in other authors. This is not the place to compare the doctrines of Rousseau with those of other writers; suffice it to say, that although they rely upon the pact, they wish, nevertheless, to establish the rights of civil power as they have been hitherto understood by the common consent of mankind, whilst. the author of the Contrat Social proposes in his book the following problem, which he considers fundamental. I quote his own words: " To find a form of association which shall defend and protect with all the common strength the person and property of each associate, and by which each one, being united to all, shall nevertheless obey only himself, and remain as free as before." Such is the fundamental problem, the solution of which is given in the Contrat Social. This nonsense of having none but one's self to obey, making a contract, and remaining as free as before, needs no comment, after what the author himself says in the following line: " The clauses of this contract are so fixed by the very nature of the act, that the least modification would render them vain and of no effect." (Book i. chap. 6.) Rousseau's ideas on this subject do not, therefore, agree with those of many other writers, who also have spoken of pacts, in their explanation of the origin of power; the latter sought a theory in support of power, the former wished to destroy that which existed, and to throw society into a state of excitement. Through a singular idea, Rousseau, in his vault at the Pantheon, is represented to us with the door half open, and a lighted torch in his hand-an emblem, perhaps, more significant than has been imagined. The artist's intention was, to express the idea of Rousseau's enlightening the world even after his death; but it should be remembered, that the torch is also an emblem of the incendiary. La Harpe said of him: " Sa parole est un feu, mais un feu qui ravage." To return to the question, I will observe, that the doctrine of a pact is of no avail in accounting for the establishment of power; for it cannot even render legitimate either its origin or its exercise. First, an explicit pact has evidently never existed; and secondly, in the formation of even the most limited society, such a pact never could obtain the consent of every individual member. In any convention for such an object, only the heads of families could take part; and hence, women, children, and servants might protest against it. In assenting to such a pact, what right would fathers have to represent the whole of their families? The will of the latter, it will be said, was virtually included in that of their chief; but this is the very point that wants proof. Supposition here is easy enough; proof is not so easy. When you seek the origin of power in principles of strict right, and attempt to maintain that this is only one of those cases to which ordinary conditions of contracts are applicable, you are met at once by a very serious difficulty; for you are obliged to have recourse to a fiction:the words "implicit consent" are a mere fiction, and nothing more. Is it not evident, that the consent of families must have been implicit, even supposing that of their heads to be explicit? This explicit consent would, in fact, be impossible in the formation of any society, however limited in extent. And more3ver, the consent of succeeding generations will be equally implicit, since it is impossible to be continually renewing the contract, for the purpose of consulting the wishes of the parties interested in its effects. Reason and history teach that society has never been thus organized; our own experience tells us that it is not now upheld or governed by any such principles. Of what use, then, is this inexplicable theory? When a theory has a practical object, the best way of proving its fallacy is, to prove its impracticability. The faculties with which civil power is, and always has been, considered to be invested, are of such a nature, that they cannot have proceeded from a pact StO PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. The right of life and death can have come only from God. Man is not in possession of this right. No pact merely human could invest him with a power which he has not, either in relation to himself or to others. I will endeavor to demonstrate this point with all possible precision. If the right of taking away life emanates not from God, but from a pact, it must have originated in the following manner: every member of society must have said, expressly or tacitly, " I consent to the establishment of laws to decree punishment of death for certain crimes; and if I should at any time transgress them, I ani willing from that moment to forfeit my life." In this manner, every individual will have given up his life, supposing that the conditions specified are realized; but no individual having a right over his own life, the resigning of it becomes radically null. The joint consent of all the members of society does not obviate the radical and essential nullity of each one's right to give up his life; the sum of their resignations is therefore equally null, and consequently incapable of producing any right whatever. It will be said, perhaps, that man, properly speaking, has no right over his own life, when an arbitrary right is implied, but that when he chooses to dispose of it for his own advantage, the general principle should be restricted. This reflection, at first sight plausible, would lead to the terrible consequence of authorizing suicide. In reply, it will be said, that suicide is no advantage to him who commits it; but if you once grant to the individual the right of disposing of his life, provided he reap an advantage from so doing, you cannot constitute yourselves judges to decide whether or not this advantage exists in any particular case. According to you, he had a right to sacrifice his life when, for example, to satisfy his wants or his taste, he had stolen the property of another. That is to say, that he had a right of choice between the advantages of life and those of satisfying a desire: what will you answer, if he tell you that he prefers death to misery, to ennui, to grief, or to such and such misfortunes which torment him? The right of life and death cannot consequently emanate from a pact. Man's life is not his own; he has only the use of it so long as it pleases the Creator to grant it him. He has not, therefore, the right of disposing of it, and all conventions he may make for that purpose are null. In some instances, it is lawful, glorious, it may be even obligatory, to deliver one's self up to certain death; but let us not confound ideas: man does not in that case sacrifice his life as being the master of it, he is a voluntary victim to the salvation of his country, or to the good of mankind. The warrior who scales a wall, the charitable man who confronts the most dangerous contagion in visiting the sick, the missionary who resorts to unknown countries, who resigns himself to live in unhealthy climates, and who penetrates into inaccessible forests, seeking ferocious hordes, do not dispose of their lives as being their own; they sacrifice them to a purpose great, sublime, just, and pleasing to God; for God loves virtue, especially heroic virtue; and it is a heroic virtue to die for one's country, to die in visiting the sick, or in carrying the light of truth to those seated in darkness and in the shadow of death. This right of life and death, with which civil power has ever been considered invested, may by some be considered as founded upon the natural right of self-defence vested in society. Every individual, they will say, has the right of taking away the life of another in self-defence; therefore society also has this right. In the chapter on Intolerance, I have touched slightly upon this point, and made some reflections which may be repeated here. 1 will endeavor, nevertheless, to extend them and confirm them by arguments of another kind. In the first place, I maintain that the right of self-defence may confer upon society that of taking away life. If one individual attacked by another may lawfully repel him-kill him even, if necessary to save his own life, it is evident that an assemblage of men have the same right. This appears so evident, that demonstration is superfluous. One PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 301 society attacked by another has incontestably the right of resisting and repelling the attack-it is justified in making war. With more reason, therefore, might it resist an individual, to make war on him, or kill him. This is all perfectly true and obvious; and I grant that there thus exists, from the very nature of things, a title upon which we may found the right of inflicting capital punishment. These ideas are plausible, and seem at first sight to nullify the reasons on which we have supported the necessity of having recourse to God for the origin of this formidable right. Nevertheless, when we come to examine them thoroughly, they are far from satisfactory; and it may be even said4 that in the sense} in which they are understood and applied, they are subversive of the acknowledged principles of society. In fact, if such a theory be admitted, if the right of inflicting capital punishment be made to rest exclusively on this principle, the ideas of penalty, chastisement, and of human justice disappear at once. It has always been thought that the criminal dying upon a gibbet suffers a penalty; and although this terrible act is certainly a satisfaction to society, a means of preservation, yet the principal and predominant idea, that which surpasses all others, which best justifies and exculpates society, which gives to the judge his august character, and stamps disgrace upon the criminal, is the idea of chastisement, of penalty, and of justice. All this disappears when once we can assert that society, in taking away life, only acts in self-defence. Such an act is conformable to reason, it is just, but it no longer merits the honorable title of an executive act of justice. A man is justified in killing an assassin; but in so doing he does not administer justice, he does not execute justice, nor inflict a penalty. These things are very different, and of a distinct order; we cannot confound them without shocking the good sense of mankind. We will render this distinction more apparent by putting the two theories into the mouth of the judge: the contrast is striking. In the former case, the judge says to the criminal: "You are guilty; the law decrees against you the penalty of death; I, the minister of justice, apply it; the executioner is ordered to inflict it." In the second, he says to him: "You have attacked society, which cannot exist if such attacks are tolerated. It defends itself, and for this reason puts you to death; I, its agent, declare, that the time for its defending itself is come, and hence I give you up to the executioner." In the former supposition, the judge is a minister of justicer and the culprit a criminal who undergoes a just penalty; in the latter, the judge is an instrument of force, the culprit a victim. But, it will be said, the criminal is not on this account less criminal, and still merits the penalty which he undergoes. This is true with respect to the guilt, but not with respect to the penalty. The fault exists in the eyes of God, and also in the eyes of man, inasmuch as he possesses a conscience capable of judging of the morality of actions; but it does not exist in the eyes of man, considered as a judge. According to you, the judge does not punish a crime; he restrains an act injurious to society: but if you say that the judge inflicts a penalty, you change the nature of the question, for he then does something more than protect society. It follows from what we have just established, that the right of inflicting capital punishment can only emanate from God, and, consequently, if there existed no other reason for referring to God the origin of power, this alone would suffice. War against an invading nation may be explained by the right of self-defence; invasion also comes under the same principle; for if it be just, it can be entered upon only with a view to enforce some reparation or compensation refused by the enemy. War for the sake of alliance enters into that class of actions which are performed for the assistance of a friend; so that this phenomenon of war, with all its glory, and all its ravages, does not so forcibly oblige us to have recourse to a divine origin as this simple right of condemning a man to the gibbet. The sanction of law: 2 A 30' PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY.'ul wars also undoubtedly belongs to God, for in Him exists the sanction of all rights and of all duties; but there is not, in this case at least, any need of par. ticular authorization, as in the case of inflicting capital punishment. It is sufficient to have the general sanction which God, as the author of nature, has given to all natural rights and duties. How do we know that God has granted such an authorization to man? There are three ways of answering this question. 1. The testimony of the Scriptures is sufficient for all Christians. 2. The right of life and death is a universal tradition of the human race, and does, therefore, exist in reality; and as we have shown that it can have its origin only in God, it is right to suppose that He has communicated it to man in one way or another. 3. This right is Jssential to the preservation of society; God must, therefore, have granted it; for if He wills the preservation of a being, it is evident that He will have bestowed upon it all things necessary for such preservation. To recapitulate what we have hitherto advanced: the Church teaches that civil power comes from God, and this doctrine, which agrees with the formal texts of Scripture, agrees also with natural reason. The Church contents herself with establishing this dogma, and deducing from it the immediate consequence resulting from it, viz. that obedience to the lawful authorities is of right divine. With regard to the mode in which this right divine is communicated, the Church has not determined any thing: the general opinion of theologians is, that society receives it from God, and that, from society, it is transferred, by lawful means, to the person or persons. appointed to exercise it. In order that civil power may exact obedience, and be considered invested with this right divine, it must be legitimate; that is to say, the person or persons in possession of it must have acquired it by lawful means, or this power must have become legitimate in their possession, by means acknowledged to be in accordance with right. With respect to political forms, the Church does not determine any thing; but whatever be the form of government, the civil power must be confined within legitimate bounds, while the subject, on his side, is bound to obey. The fitness and legitimacy of such or such persons, and of such and such forms, are subjects not appertaining to right divine. They are particular questions, depending upon a variety of circumstances, and to which no general theory is applicable. One example of private right will serve to illustrate what we have just explained. Respect for property is of natural and divine right; but the ownership of property, the respective rights of individuals to the same thing, the restrictions to which property should be subject, are questions appertaining to civil right, which have always been resolved, and are still resolved, in various ways. The main object is to adhere to the protective principle of property, the indispensable basis of all social organization; but the application of this principle is, and must be, subject to a variety of circumstances and events, a variety arising from the course of human affairs. It is the same with power. The Church, intrusted with the great deposit of the most important truths, keeps in this deposit the truth which guaranties a divine origin to civil power, and makes the existence of the law an affair of right divine; but she does not interfere in particular cases, which are always controlled more or less by the fluctuation and uncertainty with which the world is agitated. When thus explained, the Catholic doctrine is not in the least opposed to true liberty; it consolidates power, and does not prejudice the questions that may arise between the governors and the governed. No unlawful power can lay claim to the right divine; for it must be legitimate to merit the application of this right. This legitimacy is determined and declared by the laws of each country, from which it follows that the law is the organ of the right divine. This right, therefore, only consolidates what is just; and certainly that which insures justice in the world cannot be said to lead to despotism, for nothing can be more opposed to PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 3(13 the liberty and happiness of the people than the absence of justice and legitimacy. Popular liberties are not endangered by the strong safeguards surrounding lhe legitimacy of the governing power. On the contrary, reason, history, and experience teach that all illegitimate powers are tyrannical. Their illegitimacy necessarily carries weakness along with it; and it is not the strong, but the weak powers that oppress the people. Real tyranny consists in the person governing taking care of his own instead of the public interest. Now this is precisely what takes place when, feeling himself weak and tottering, he is forced to guard and protect himself. His object is then, no longer society, but himself. Instead of thinking how he may benefit those over whom he rules, he only studies and calculates beforehand the utility he may derive from his own measures. I have said in another place, and I repeat, that, in looking over history, we find continually this important truth written in letters of blood: Wo to the people governed by a power which is obliged to think of its own preservation! A fundamental truth in political science, and which has, nevertheless, been lamentably overlooked in modern times.'Much labor has been and is still spent to produce guarantees for liberty. To this end a multitude of governments have been overturned, and attempts have been made to weaken them all, without thinking that this was the most certain means of introducing oppression. What signify the veils under which despotism is concealed, and the forms by which it seeks to disguise its existence? History, which has recorded the outrages committed in Europe during the last century; true history, not that written by the authors of those outrages, by their accomplices, or by interested parties, will relate to posterity the injustices and crimes committed in the midst of civil discord by governments foreseeing their end, and feeling in themselves extreme weakness caused by their tyrannical conduct and the illegality of their origin. How is it, then, that such a violent warfare has been declared against doctrines tending to consolidate civil authority by rendering it legitimate, and to prove this legitimacy by declaring that power descends from Heaven? How has it been overlooked that the legitimacy of power is an.essential element of its strength, and that this strength is the safest guarantee of true liberty? Let it not be said that these are paradoxes. What is the object of societies and governments? Is it not the substitution of public for private force, of the rule of right for the rule of the strong? But when once you begin to undermine power, to make it an object of popular aversion or defiance; when once you represent it to the people as their natural enemy, and vilify the sacred titles on which obedience due to it is founded, you attack at once the very object of the institution of society; and by weakening the action of public force, you provoke a development of private force, which is the very thing that governments were instituted to prevent. The secret of that mildness for which European monarchies were remarkable, consisted chiefly in their security and strength, founded upon the loftiness and legality of the titles of their power; whilst you will find in the perils with which the thrones of the Roman emperors and Eastern monarchs were beset, one reason for their monstrous despotism. I do not hesitate to assert, and in the course of this work I shall prove more and more, that one cause of the evils to which Europe has been exposed during the laborious solution of the problem of the alliance between order and liberty, is the oblivion of Catholic doctrines on this point. These doctrines have been condemned without being heard or examined into, and the enemies of the Church have copied each other without ever having recourse to the real sources, where they might easily have found out the truth. Protestantism, departing from the teaching of Catholicity, has been thrown alternately upon two opposite rocks; wishing to establish order, it has done so .304 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY, to the prejudice of true liberty; and in its desire to maintain liberty, it has become an enemy to order. From the bosom of false reform have arisen the insane doctrines, which, preaching up Christian liberty, discharged the subject from his obedience to the lawful authorities; from the bosom of the same reform has likewise arisen the theory of Iobbes, which sets up despotism in the midst of society as a monstrous idol, to which all should be sacrificed, without regard for the eternal principles of morality, with no other rule than the caprice of him who rules, with no other bounds to his power than those marked out by the extent of his strength. Such is the necessary result of banishing from the world the authority of God. Man, left to himself, can only succeed in producing slavery or anarchy; the same thing under two forms; the reign offforce. In explaining the origin of society and power, divers modern writers have said a great deal about a certain state of nature anterior to all societies, and have supposed that these societies were formed by a gradual transition from a barbarous to a civilized state. This erroneous doctrine lies deeper than some persons imagine. If we pay particular attention to the subject, we shall find that the erroneous ideas entertained on this subject may be traced to the forgetfulness of Christian teaching. Hobbes derives every kind of right from a pact. According to him, when men live in a state of nature, they have a right to every thing; which means, in other terms, that there is no difference between good and evil. From which it follows that society was organized without any regard to morality, and ought to be considered merely as a means to an end. Puffendorf and some others, admitting the principle of sociality, that is, deriving from society the rules of morality, arrive at last at the principle of Hobbes, and trample under foot both the natural and eternal laws. Investigating the causes of these grave errors, I find them in the deplorable contempt which writers on philosophy and morality in modern times have so eagerly evinced for the treasures of light afforded us by religion. This light, religion affords us on all questions, fixing by its dogmas the cardinal points of all true philosophy, and offering us in its narrations the only thread that can guide us through the labyrinth of the first ages. Read the Protestant writers, compare them with the Catholic, and you will find a remarkable difference between them. The latter reason, give their minds free scope, and allow them a wide range; but they ever leave untouched certain fundamental principles, and every theory which they cannot reconcile with these principles is inexorably rejected by them as erroneous. The former roam without guide or compass in the boundless space of human opinions, presenting to us a lively image of that pagan philosophy which had not the light of faith to guide its inquiries into the principles of things. Instead of finding a God, the Creator and Director, occupied without ceasing, like a tender father, with the happiness of beings whom He has drawn from nothing, this philosophy never discovered any thing but chaos, either in the physical or in the social world. This degraded and brutalized state, disguised under the name of nature, is in reality nothing but the chaos of society. This chaos will be found in a great'number of modern writers who are not Catholics; and by a surprising coincidence, worthy of the most serious reflection, it will also be found in the principal writers on pagan science. From the moment that we lose sight of the great traditions of mankind, traditions in which man is represented to us receiving from God himself intelligence, speech, and rules for his conduct in this life; from the moment that we forget the narration of Moses, that simple, sublime, and only true explanation of the origin ot man and of society; our ideas become confused, the facts are jumbled, one absurdity creates another, and, like the builders of the tower of Babel, we suffer the just punishment of our pride. How wonderful! that antiquity, which, deprived of the light of Christianity, and lost in the labyrinth of human inventions, had almost forgotten the primitive tradition of the origin of society, PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 305 and had recourse to the absurd transition from the barbarous to the civilized state, should nevertheless, whenever a society was to be formed, have invoked this right divine, which certain philosophers have treated with so much disdain. The most renowned legislators sought to establish upon Divine authority, the laws they were giving to the people, thus rendering a solemn homage to that truth logically established by Catholics, viz. that all power, to be regarded as legitimate and to exercise its due ascendency, must receive its titles from God. If you desire that the legislator should not be placed under the sad necessity of feigning revelations which he has never received, or bringing forward the intervention of God at every moment in an extraordinary manner in human affairs, establish the general principle that all power proceeds from God, that the author of nature is likewise the author of society, that the existence-of society is a precept imposed upon mankind for their own preservation. Let submission and obedience be so regulated as not to wound man's pride; let those who rule over him be invested with superior authority, to which he can submit without a shadow of self-abasement. In short, establish the Catholic doctrine. Whatever be the form of government, you will then have found a solid basis on which to support the respect due to the authorities; you will have placed the social edifice upon a foundation far more secure than human conventions. Examine the right divine such as I have represented it, supported by the interpretations of illustrious doctors, and I am certain that you cannot refuse to admit its perfect conformity to the lights of true philosophy; but if you persist in giving to this right a strange sense which it does not possess, pretending that it ought to have a different explanation, I shall insist upon one thing which you cannot refuse me: produce me a text of Scripture, a monument of the traditions acknowledged as articles of faith in the Catholic Church, a decision of the Councils or of the Pontiffs, showing your interpretation to be well founded. Until you have done this, I have a right to tell you, that, possessed with the desire of rendering Catholicity odious, you impute to it doctrines which it does not profess, you attribute to it dogmas which it does not acknowledge; that you are adversaries without candor or honesty, and employ weapons disallowed by the laws of combat. (28) CHAPTER LI. TRANSMISSION OF POWER, ACCORDING TO THE CATHOLIC DOCTORS. THE difference of opinion concerning the mode in which God communicates civil power, however grave in theory, does not appear to be of great importance in practice. We have already observed, that, among those who assert that this power comes from God, some maintain that it proceeds from Him directly, others indirectly. In the opinion of the former, when once the nomination of the persons appointed to exercise authority is made, society not only lays down the necessary conditions for the communication of power, but actually communicates it, having first received it from God. The latter maintain that society merely makes the appointment, and, by means of this act, God confers the power upon the person appointed. I repeat, that, in practice, the result is the same, and the difference therefore vanishes. Nay, even in theory, the divergence may not be so great as it appears at first sight. I shall endeavor to demonstrate this by submitting the two opinions to rigorous investigation. The explanation given of the origin of power by both parties may be set forth in the following terms: In the opinion of some, God says, " Society, for thy preservation and well-being, thou requirest a government; choose, therefore, under what form this government shall be exercised, and appoint the persons 39 2 A 2 306 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. who are to take charge of it; I, on my part, will confer upon them the faculties necessary for the fulfilment of their mission." In the opinion of others, God says, Society, for thy preservation and well-being, thou requirest a government: I confer upon thee the faculties necessary for the fulfilment of this object; choose thyself the form under which this government shall be exercised, and, appointing the persons who are to take charge of it, transmit to them the faculties which I have communicated to thee." In order to be convinced of the identity of the results of these two formulas, we must examine them in their relations: 1. to the sanctity of their origin; 2. to the rights and duties of power; 3. to the rights and duties of the subject. Whether God has communicated power to society, to be transmitted by it to the persons appointed to exercise it, or has merely conferred upon it the right of determining the form and appointing such persons, that, by means of this determination and appointment, the rights annexed to supreme power may be directly communicated to the persons intrusted with the exercise of it, it follows, in either case, that this supreme power, wherever it exists, emanates from God; and is not less sacred because it passes through an intermediate means appointed by Him. I will illustrate these ideas by a very simple and obvious example. Suppose there exists in a state some particular community, instituted by the sovereign, and having no rights but those granted by him; no duties but those which he imposes upon it; in fine, a community indebted to the sovereign for all that it is and has. This community, however small it may be, will require a government: this government may be formed in two ways; either the sovereign who has given it its laws has conferred upon it the right of governing itself, and of transmitting this right to the person or persons whom it may think proper to elect; or he has left to the community itself the determination of the form and the appointment of the persons, adding that such determination and appointment being once made, it shall be understood that, by this simple act, the sovereign grants to the persons appointed the right of exercising their functions within lawful bounds. It is evident that the parity is complete; and now I ask, Is it not true that, in this case, as in the other, the faculties of him who governs should be considered and respected as an emanation from the sovereign? Is it not true that it would be difficult to discover any difference between these two kinds of investiture? In both suppositions, the community would have the right of determining the form and appointing the person; in both cases, he who governs could only obtain his powers by virtue of the previous determination and appointment; in neither case would there need any new manifestation on the part of the sovereign, that the person nominated might be understood to be invested witl faculties corresponding to the exercise of his functions. In practice, therefore, there would be no difference; further, I will assert that, in theory even, it would be difficult to trace the point of separation between the two cases. Certainly, if we view the matter with the eye of an acute metaphysician, we may very easily discover this difference, by considering the moral entity which we call power; not as it is in itself, and in its effects, but as an abstract being, passing from one hand to another, in the manner of corporeal objects. But, instead of examining the question for the curiosity of knowing whether this moral entity, before arriving at one person, has not first passed through another. let us first seek to verify from whence it emanates, and what are the faculties it confers, the rights it imposes: we shall then find that, in saying, " I confer this faculty upon you, transmit it to whomsoever you think proper, and in whatever way you think proper," the sovereign expresses no more than if he should say: " Such or such a faculty shall be conferred by me upon the person you wish, and in the manner you wish, by the simple fact of the election you have made." It follows hence, that.whether we adopt the opinion of direct communication, or PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 307 the contrary one, the supreme rights of hereditary monarchies, of elective monarchies, and in general of all supreme powers, whatever be their forms of govern. ment, will not on this account be less sacred, less certainly sealed with divine authority. Difference in the forms of government does not in the least diminish the obligations of submitting to civil' power, lawfully established; so that the refusing of obedience to the president of a republic, in a country in which republicanism is the legal form of government, is no less a criminal resistance to the ordinance of God, than the refusing of the same obedience to the most absolute monarch. Bossuet, so strongly attached to monarchy, and writing in a country and at a period in which the king might exclaim,' I am the state;" and in a work, in which he proposed nothing less than to offer a complete treatise on Politics, taken from the words of Holy Scripture; established, nevertheless, in a manner the most explicit and conclusive, the truth which I have just pointed out. " We ought to be subject," says he, " to the form of government established in our country." And he afterwards quotes these words of St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, chap. xiii.: "Let every soul be subject to higher powers; for there is no power but from God; and those that are, are ordained of God; therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God." " There is no form of government," continues Bossuet, " nor any human institution, without its inconveniences; so that it is necessary to remain in the state to which length of time has inured the people. For this reason, God takes under His protection all legitimate governments, in whatever form they may be established; whoever undertakes to overturn them, is not only an enemy to the public, but also to God." (Liv. ii. prop. 12.) It is of little consequence whether power be communicated directly or indirectly; the respect and obedience due to it are not in the least changed, and consequently the sacredness of the origin of power remains the same, whichever opinion be adopted; neither do the rights and duties of government, and those of the subject, remain less sacred. These rights and duties suffer no change, whether there be or not an intermediate means for the communication of power; their nature and limits are founded upon the very object of the institution of society; but this object is totally independent of the mode in which God communicates power to man. Against what I have advanced upon the small amount of difference existing between these various opinions, the authority of the theologians, whose texts I have cited in the preceding chapter, will be objected. " These theologians," it will be said,' certainly understood these affairs; and as they placed so much importance upon the distinction here under discussion, they undoubtedly saw in it some great truth proper to be taken into account." This objection acquires the more force, when we consider that the distinction made upon this point by these theologians does not proceed from a spirit of subtilty, as it might be suspected in the case of those scholastic theologians, whose writings are replete with dialectic arguments, rather than with reasoning founded upon Scripture, upon the apostolical traditions and other theological resources, from which we ought principally to take our arguments in controversies of this nature; but the theologians whom I have quoted are certainly not of this class. We need only name Bellarmin, to recognise a grave and extremely solid author, who opposed the Protestants with Scripture, with traditions, with the authority of the holy Fathers, the decisions of the universal Church and of the Sovereign Pontiffs: Bellarmin was not one of those theologians who excited the lamentations of Melchior Cano, and of whom he said, that in the hour of combat against heresy, instead of wielding well-tempered weapons, they wielded only long reeds: arundines longas. Such was the importance given to this distinction, that James, King of England, complained loudly that Cardinal Bellarmin taught that the power of kings came from God only indirectly; and the Catholic schools were so far from looking upon this distinction 308 PROTESrANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. as insignificant, that they defended it against the attacks of King James; and that one of their most illustrious doctors, Suarez, entered the lists to contend for the doctrines of Bellarmin. it appears, then, at first sight, that I am wrong in what I have said upon the slight importance of the distinction here mentioned. I believe, nevertheless, that the difficulty may be easily removed, and that it will suffice for this purpose to distinguish the different aspects under which the question presents itself. First of all, I will observe, that the Catholic theologians proceeded upon this point with admirable prudence and foresight; and truly the question, such as it was then proposed, comprehended more than a subtilty; I am inclined to think that it included one of the most serious points of public right. In order to examine deeply these doctrines of Catholic theologians, and to lay hold of their true sense, we must fix our attention upon the tendencies which the religious reform of the sixteenth century communicated to European monarchy. _Even before this reform, thrones had acquired a great deal of force and solidity, through the decline in the power of the feudal lords, and the development of the democratic element. That element, which in due time was destined to acquire the power of which it is now possessed, was not then in sufficiently favorable circumstances to exert its action on the vast scale which it embraces in our days. On this account, it was obliged to take refuge under the shadow of the throne-an emblem of order and justice elevated in the midst of society-a sort of universal regulator and leveller, destined gradually to destroy the extreme inequalities so harassing and obnoxious to the people. Thus, democracy itself, which, in after ages, was to overturn so many thrones, served them, at that time, as a firm support, sheltering them from the attacks of a turbulent and formidable aristocracy, unwilling to be transformed into mere courtiers. There was nothing in this state of things very mischievous, so long as matters remained within the limits prescribed by reason and justice; but, unfortunately, good principles were exaggerated, regal authority was gradually converted into an absorbent force, which would have concentrated in itself all other forces. European monarchy lost thus its true character, which consists in monarchy having just limits, even when these limits are not marked out and guarded by political institutions. Protestantism exalts to an incredible degree the pretensions of kings, by attacking the spiritual power of the Pope, by painting in the darkest colors the dangers of his temporal power, and especially by establishing the fatal doctrine, that the supreme civil power has ecclesiastical affairs totally under its direction; and by accusing of abuse, of usurpation, of unbounded ambition, the independence which the Church claims by virtue of the sacred canons, of the guarantee afforded by the civil law, of the traditions of fifteen centuries, and above all, of the institution of her Divine Founder. He had no need of the permission of any civil power to send His apostles to preach the Gospel, and to baptize in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. A glance at the history of Europe at the epoch here mentioned will convince us of the evil consequences of such a doctrine, and show us how agreeable it must have been to the ears of power, which it invested with unbounded faculties, even in matters purely religious. This exaggeration of the rights of civil power, coinciding with the efforts made on the other hand to repress the pontifical authority, must have favored the doctrine which attempted to place the power of kings upon a level, in every respect, with that of Popes; and consequently, it was very natural that its authors should wish to establish, that sovereigns received their power from God, in the same manner as the Popes, without any difference whatever. The doctrine of direct communication, although very susceptible, as we have seen, of a reasonable explanation, might involve a more extensive meaning, which would have made the people oblivious of the special and characteristic manner in which the supreme power of the Church was instituted by God PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 309 himself. What I have just advanced cannot be considered as merely conjectural; the whole is supported by facts which cannot have been forgotten. The reigns of Henry VIII. and of Elizabeth of England, and the usurpations and violence in which Protestant powers indulged against the Catholic Church, are a sufficient confirmation of these sad truths. But, unfortunately, even in countries where Catholicity remained triumphant, attempts were then, have since been, and still are witnessed, that show clearly, enough how strong was the impulse.given in this sense to the civil power; for even now it is but too prone to transgress its legitimate bounds. The circumstances under which the two illustrious theologians above cited, BellarInin and Suarez, wrote, are another reason in support of what I have just adduced. I have quoted remarkable passages from a work by Suarez, written in refutation of a publication of King James of England. This King could not bear the idea of Cardinal Bellarmin's having established that the power of kings does not emanate directly from God, but is communicated through the medium of society, which receives it in a direct manner. Possessed, as is well known, with the mania for theological debates and decisions, King James did not confine himself to simple theory; he reduced his theory to practice, and said to his Parliament: "that God had appointed him absolute master; and that all privileges which co-legislative bodies enjoyed were pure concessions proceeding from the bounty of kings." His courtiers, in their adulations, decreed him the title of the modern Solomon; he might well,.therefore, feel displeased with the Italian and Spanish theologians for endeavoring to humble the pride of his presumptuous wisdom, and restrain his despotism. If we reflect upon the words of Bellarmin, and especially on those of Suarez, we shall find that the aim of these eminent theologians was to point out the difference between the civil and ecclesiastical powers, with respect to the mode of their origin. They admit that both powers come from God; that it is an indispensable duty to be subject to them; and that to resist them is to resist the ordinance of God; but not finding, either in the Scripture or in tradition, the least foundation for establishing that civil power, like that of the Sovereign Pontiffs, has been instituted in a special and extraordinary manner, they are anxious that this difference should remain obvious, and seek to avoid the introduction, in a point of such import, of a confusion of ideas, from which dangerous errors might arise. "This opinion," says Suarez, "is new, singular, and apparently invented to exalt the temporal over the spiritual power." (See above.) Hence, in discussing the question of the origin of civil power, they require you to bear in mind the influence of society. " By means of man's counsel and election," says Bellarmin; thus reminding the King, that how sacred soever his authority might be, it had been very differently instituted from that of the Sovereign Pontiff. The distinction between direct and indirect communication served, in a particular manner, to prove the difference in question; for this very distinction recalled to mind that civil power, although established by God, owed its existence to no extraordinary measure, and could not be considered as supernatural, but was to be looked upon as dependent upon human and natural right, sanctioned, nevertheless, in an express manner, by right divine. These theologians would not, perhaps, have forcibly insisted upon this distinction, had it not been for the efforts made by others to efface it. It was a matter of consequence with them to humble the pride of power, to prevent it from assuming, whether in respect to its origin or its rights, titles not appertaining to it; to prevent its ascribing to itself an unlawful supremacy, even in religious affairs, and thus causing monarchy to degenerate into a sort of Oriental despotism, in which the governing power is every thing, the people and their affairs nothing. If we weigh their words attentively, we shall find that the predominating idea with them was that which I have just stated. At first 310 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. sight, their language appears exceedingly democratical, from their frequent use of the words community, state, society, people; but on examining closely their system of doctrine, and paying attention to the expressions they use, we perceive that they had no subversive design, and that anarchical theories never once entered their minds. They advocated on the one hand the rights of authority, whilst they protected on the other those of the subject, thus endeavoring to resolve the problem which formed the continual occupation of all honest political writers; to limit power without destroying it, or placing it under t') great restraint; to protect society against the disorder of despotism, without rendering it at the same time refractory or turbulent. From the above reasoning we see that the distinction between direct and indirect communication may be of great or of little importance, according to the view we take of it. It is of great importance when serving to remind the civil power that the establishment of governments and the regulation of their forms has in some way been dependent upon society itself, and that no individual, no family, can presume upon having received from God the government of the people without regard to the laws of the country, as if those laws, in whatever form, were a free offering made by them to the people. This same distinction serves, in short, to establish the origin of civil power as an emanation from the Deity, the Author of nature, but not as instituted in an extraordinary manner, as something supernatural, as in the case of the supreme ecclesiastical power. From this latter consideration two consequences follow, one of which is of more importance than the other to the legitimate liberties of mankind and the independence of the Church. To call in the intervention, express or tacit, of society for the establishment of governments and the regulation of their forms, is to prevent the concealment of their origin under any veil of mystery; it is simply and plainly to define their object, consequently to explain their duties, as well as to point out their faculties. By these means a restraint is put upon the disorders and abuses of authority, which it is thenceforth clearly seen are not to find support in enigmatical theories. The independence of the Church is thus established upon a solid basis. Whenever the civil power attempts to offer it violence, the Church may say: " My authority is established directly and immediately by God in a special, extraordinary, and miraculous manner; yours likewise emanates from God, but through the intervention of man, through the intermediary of the laws, in the ordinary course pointed out by nature and determined by human prudence; but neither man nor the civil power has a right to destroy or change what God Himself, deviating from the course of nature and making use of ineffable prodigies, has thought proper to institute." So long as the ideas here set forth are respected, so long as direct communication is not received in tod extensive a sense, and care taken not to confound things whose limits so gravely affect religion and society, the distinction here spoken of is of little importance. We have seen, even, that the two opinions may be reconciled with each other. At all events, this distinction will have served to illustrate with what exalted views Catholic theologians have discussed the grave questions of public right. Guided by sound philosophy, and without ever losing sight of the beacon of revelation, they have given equal satisfaction to the desires of both schools. They have not fallen into the errors of either; democratical without being anarchists, monarchical, without being base adulators. In establishing the rights of the people, they were not, like modern demagogues, under the necessity of destroying religion, but made her the guardian of the rights of the people, as well as of those of kings. Liberty was not with them a synonyme for license and irreligion; in their opinion, men might be free without being rebellious or impious; liberty consisted in being subject to the law; and, as they could not conceive that law was possible withutt religion and without God, in like man PROTESTANTISM COMIPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 311 ner also they believed that liberty was not possible without God and religion. What reason, revelation, and history taught them has become evident to us by experience. Shall we be told of the dangers, grave or slight, in which theologians could involve governments? But people now-a-days are not led astray by affected and insidious declamations; and kings well know whether the schools of theologians have exiled royalty, and led it to the scaffold. (29) CHAPTER LII. FREEDOM OF SPEECH UNDER THE SPANISH MONARCHY. EXTREME doctrines neither insure the liberty of the people, nor the force and stability of governments; both require truth and justice, the only foundations upon which we can build with any hope of the durability of the edifice. In general, maxims favorable to liberty are never carried to a higher pitch than on the eve of the establishment of despotism; and it is to be feared that the overthrow and ruin of governments are very near when undue adulations are lavished upon their power. When was the power of kings more extolled than about the middle of last century? Who is not aware of the exaggerations given to the prerogatives of royal power, when the Jesuits were to be expelled, and the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff impugned? In Portugal, Spain, Italy, Austria, and in France, the unanimous voice of the purest and most fervent royalism was heard; and yet what became of this great love, this lively zeal for monarchy, from the moment that the revolutionary storm had placed it in danger? Observe what, generally speaking, has been the conduct of men opposed to the ecclesiastical authority; they have united themselves to demagogues for destroying, at the same time, the authority of the Church and that of kings; they have forgotten their base adulations, and abandoned themselves to insults and violence. People and governments should never lose sight of this rule of conduct, so useful to men of sense, to mistrust flatterers, and to confide in those who warn and correct them. Let them beware whenever they are caressed with an affected tenderness, and their cause is maintained with especial warmth; it is a sure sign of an attempt to make use of them as tools for the furtherance of interests very different from their own. In France, at certain times, monarchical zeal was carried to such an extent as to call forth, in the assembly of the States-General, a motion for establishing, as a sacred principle, that kings receive their supreme authority immediately from God: this was not carried into effect, but the proposal shows how ardently the cause of the throne was then maintained. Now, what did all this ardor mean? Simply an antipathy against the Court of Rome, a dread of the extension of papal power; it was an obstacle to be opposed to the phantom of a universal monarchy. Louis XIV., so tenacious of the royal prerogative, assuredly did not foresee the misfortunes of Louis XVI.; and Charles III., in listening to the Count of Aranda and Campomanes, little thought that the constituent Cortes of Cadiz was so near. In the midst of their splendor, monarchs forgot one principle predominating in the whole modern history of Europe, viz. that social organization is an emanation of religion, and, consequently, that the two powers to which the defence and preservation of society appertain ought to co-exist in perfect harmony. The power of the Church cannot be diminished without injury to the civil power; he who sows schism will reap rebellion. During the last three centuries the most liberal and popular doctrines upon the origin of power have been circulated amongst us. What did it matter to the Spanish monarchy, since 312 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. those very persons who advocated these doctrines were the first to condemn resistance to the lawful authorities, to inculcate the obligation of obedience to them, and to establish in all hearts, respect, love, and veneration for the sovereign? The disturbances of our epoch, and the dangers constantly besetting thrones, are not exactly attributable to the propagation of doctrines more or less democratical, but to the absence of moral and religious principles. What will be gained by asserting that power comes from God, if people believe not in God? Point out the sacred character of the duty of obedience, and what effect will it produce upon those'whf admit not the existence of moral order, and to whom duty is merely a chimerical idea? Suppose, on the contrary, that you have to deal with men penetrated with moral and religious principles, who bow to the will of God, and believe themselves bound to submit to it, so soon as it is manifested to them. What does it matter then whether civil power proceeds from God directly or indirectly? it is enough to convince them, in one way or another, that, whatever be its origin, God approves of it, and wills that it should be obeyed; they will immediately submit with pleasure, for they will see in this submission the accomplishment of a duty. These considerations serve to explain the reason why certain doctrines appear more dangerous now than formerly: incredulity and immorality give them perverse interpretations, and apply them so as to create nothing but excesses and disorders. From the manner in which the despotism of Philip II. and his successors is now spoken of, we might be led to suppose that in their time no other doctrines than those in favor of the most rigid absolutism could be circulated; and yet we find that there were circulated, without the least apprehension on the part of power, works maintaining theories which, even in our days, would be esteemed too bold. Is it not, therefore, remarkable, that the famous book of Father Mariana, intituled De Rege et Regis institutione, which was burned at Paris by the hand of the public executioner, had been published in Spain eleven years before, without the least obstacle to its publication, either on the part of the ecclesiastical or civil authority? Mariana undertook his task at the instigation and request of D. Garcia de Loaisa, tutor to Philip III., and subsequently Bishop of Toledo; so that the work, strange to say, was intended for the instruction of the heir-apparent. Never was more freedom used in speaking to kings; never was tyranny condemned in a louder voice; never were more popular doctrines proclaimed; and the work was, nevertheless, published at Toledo, in 1599, in the printing-office of Pedro Rodrigo, printer to the king, with the approbation of P. Fr. Pedro de Ona, provincial of the Mercenaries of Madrid, with the' permission of Stephen Hojeda, visitor of the Society of Jesus in the province of Toledo, under the generalship of Claude Aquaviva; and, what is still more forcible, with the royal sanction, and a dedication to the king himself. We should also observe, that Mariana was not satisfied with this dedication placed.at the commencement of the book, but he makes the very title itself serve to show to whom it was addressed: De Rege et Regis institutione. Libri 3, ad Philippum 3, Hispanice Regem Catholicum; and, as if this were not sufficient, in dedicating his Spanish version of the History of Spain to Philip III., he says to him: "I last year dedicated to your majesty a work of my own composition, upon the virtues which ought to exist in a good king, my desire being that all princes should read it carefully and understand it." "El ano pasado presente a V. M. un libro que compuse de las virtudes que debe- tener un buen Rey, que deseo lean y entiendan todos los principes con cuidado." We will pass over his doctrine upon tyrannicide, which was the principal cause of its condemnation in France, where there existed, without doubt, motives of alarm, since kings were perishing there by the hand of the assassin. On examining his theory upon power, we find it as popular and liberal as those PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 312 of modem democrats could be. Mariana ventures to express his opinions without evasion or disguise. For example, drawing a parallel between the king and the tyrant, he says: "The king exercises with great moderation the power which he has received from his subjects........ Hence, he does not, like the tyrant, oppress his subjects as slaves, but governs them as free men; and having received his power from the people, he takes particular care that during his life, the people shall voluntarily yield him submission." "Rex quam a subditis accepit potestatem singulari modestia exercet...... Sic fit, ut subditis non tanquam servis dominetur, quod faciunt tyranni, sed tanquam liberis prsesit, et qui a populo potestatem accepit, id- in primis curse habet ut per totam vitam volentibus imperet." (Lib. 1, cap. 4, p. 57.) This was said in Spain by a simple religious, was sanctioned by his superiors, and attentively listened to by kings. To what grave reflections does this simple fact lead us! Where is that strict and indissoluble alliance which the enemies of the Church have imagined to exist between her dogmas and those of slavery? If such expressions as the above were tolerated -in a country in which Catholicity predominated so extensively, how.can it be maintained that such a religion tends to enslave the human race, and that its doctrines are favorable to despotism? Nothing would be easier than to fill whole volumes with remarkable passages of our writers, both lay and clerical, showing the extreme liberty granted upon this point, as well by the Church as by the civil government. What absolute monarch in Europe would approve of one of his high functionaries expressing the origin of power after the manner of our immortal Saavedra? "It is from the centre of justice," says he, "that the circumference of the crown has been drawn. The latter would not be necessary, if we could dispense with the former. Hac una reges olim sunt fine creati, Dicere jus populis, injustaque tollere facta. In the first age, there was no necessity for penalties, because the law did not take cognisance of transgressions; rewards were equally unnecessary, because integrity and honor were loved for their own sakes. But vice, growing with the age of the world, intimidated virtue; simple and confiding, the latter, till then, dwelt in the country. Equality was despised, modesty and chastity lost, ambition and force introduced, and after them domination. Prudence, forced by necessity, and aroused by the light of nature, reduced men to a state of civil society, to exercise therein those virtues to which reason inclines them. By means of the articulate voice with which nature had gifted them, they could explain to each other their mutual thoughts, manifest to each other their sentiments, and explain their wants, instruct, counsel, and protect each other. Society once formed, a power was created by common consent, in the whole of this community, enlightened by the law of nature, for preserving its different parts, for maintaining them in justice and peace, by punishing vice and rewarding virtue. As this power could not remain spread through the whole body of the people, on account of the confusion which would have arisen. from the resolutions and their execution, and as it was absolutely necessary that there should be some to command, and others to obey, one portion divested itself of this power, and vested it in one member, or in a small, or ini a great, number of members, that is to say, in one of the three forms of every state government-monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy. Monarchy was the first; because men selected for their government, out of their families, and afterwards even from among the whole people, some one who excelled the rest in goodness: his greatness increasing, they honored his hand with the sceptre, and encircled his head with a crown as an emblem of majesty, and as a badge of the supreme power which they had conferred upon him. This power, however, consists chiefly in that justice which ought to maintain the people in peace; this justice failing, the order of the state 40 2B 314 PROTESTANTISM C6OMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. fails, and the office of king ceases, as was the case in Castile, when the govern. ment by judges was substituted for that by kings, on account of the injustice of D. Ordona and of D. Fruela." (Character of a Christian Prince's Policy, set forth in a hundred Devices, by D. Diego de Saavedra Fajardo, Knight of the Order of St. James, Member of his Majesty's Supreme Council for the Indies, dlevice 22.) The words people, pact, consent, have ended in becoming the dread of men of sound ideas and upright intentions, on account of the deplorable abuses which have been made of them in those immoral schools which ought rather to be qualified with the epithet of irreligious than with that of democratical. No, it was not the desire of ameliorating the condition of the people which led them to overthrow the world, by overturning thrones and shedding torrents of blood in civil discord; the real cause was a blind rage for reducing to ashes the work of ages, by especially attacking religion, the main support of every thing wise, just, and salutary, that European civilization had acquired. And, in fact, have we not seen impious schools, whilst boasting of their liberty, bend under the,hand of despotism, whenever they thought it useful to their designs? Previous to the French Revolution, were they not the basest adulators of kings, whose prerogatives they extended immeasurably, with the intention of making regal power the means of oppressing the Church? After the revolutionary epoch, did we not see them assembled round Napoleon; and even yet, do they not almost deify him? And why? Because Napoleon was revolution personified, the representative and executor of the new ideas sought to be substituted for the old ones. In the same manner Protestantism extols its Queen Elizabeth; because it was she who placed the Establishment upon a solid foundation Revolutionary doctrines, besides the evils they inflict upon society, produce indirectly another effect, which may, at first sight, appear salutary, but which, in reality, is not so. They occasion dangerous reactions in the order of events, and check the progress of knowledge, by narrowing and debasing men's ideas, leading them to condemn as erroneous and pernicious, or to view with mistrust, principles which would previously have been looked upon as sound, or that would, at all events, have been regarded as mere harmless errors. The reason of all this is, simply, that liberty has no worse enemy than licentiousness. In support of this last observation, it may be well to show, that the most rigorous doctrines in political matters have originated in countries in which anarchy had made the greatest ravages, and precisely at the time when the evil, still present, or very recent, was most keenly felt. The religious revolution of the sixteenth century, and the political commotions consequent upon it, were principally felt in the north of Europe; the south, and especially Italy and Spain, were almost entirely preserved from them. Now, these last two countries are precisely those in which the dignities and prerogatives of civil power have been the least exaggerated, as well as those in which they were not disparaged in theory, and were respected in practice. Of. all modern nations, England was, the first in which a revolution, properly so called, was realized; for I do not consider as such the insurrection of the German peasantry, which, in spite of the terrible catastrophe which it caused, never effected any change in the state of society; or that of the United Provinces, which may be considered a war of independence. Now, it was precisely in England that the most erroneous doctrines in favor of the supreme authority of civil power appeared. Hobbes, who, whilst he refused to allow the rights of the Creator, attributed unbounded authority to the monarchs of the earth, lived at the most agitated and turbulent epoch in the annals of Great Britain. He was born in 1588, and died in 1679. In Spain, where the impious and anarchical doctrines, which had troubled Europe since the schism of Luther, did not penetrate until the latter part of the PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 315 eighteenth century, we have seen that the greatest license of expression was permitted upon the most important points of public right, and that doctrines were maintained which, in any other country, would have been looked upon as dangerous. Error gave rise to exaggeration; the rights of monarchs were never so much extolled as under the reign of Charles III.; that is, at the time when the modern epoch was inaugurated among us. Religion, which predominated in all consciences, maintained them in the obedience due to the sovereign, without there being any need of giving this obedience any extraordinary titles, when its real ones were sufficient, as they certainly were. For him who knows that God has prescribed obedience to lawful authority, it matters little whether this authority emanate from Heaven directly or indirectly, or whether society has more or less taken part in the determination of political forms, or in the election of the persons or families who are to exercise the supreme command. Hence we find that in Spain, although the words people, consent, pacts, were spoken of, monarchs were held in the most profound veneration, so much so that modern history does not mention a single attempt upon their persons.. Popular tumults were also of rare occurrence; and those which did happen are not attributable to either of the two above-mentioned doctrines. How does it happen that, at the end of the sixteenth century, the Council of Castile was not alarmed at the bold principles of Mariana, in his book De Rege et Regis institutione, whilst those of the Abbe Spedalieri, at the end of the eighteenth century, were such a terror to it? The reason of this lies not so much in the contents of the works, as in the epoch of their publication. The former appeared at a time when the Spanish nation, confirmed in religious and moral principles, might be compared to those robust constitutions capable of bearing food difficult of digestion. The latter was introduced among us when the doctrines and deeds of the French Revolution were shaking all the thrones of Europe, and when the propagandism of Paris was beginning to pervert us by its emissaries and books. In a nation in which reason and virtue prevail, in which evil passions are never excited, in which the well-being and prosperity of the country are the only aim of every citizen, the most popular and liberal forms of government may exist without danger; for in such a nation numerous, assemblies produce no disorder, merit is not obscured by intrigue, nor are worthless persons raised to the government, and the names of public liberty and felicity do not serve as means to raise the fortunes or satisfy the ambition of individuals. So also in a country in which religion and morality rule in every breast, in which duty is not looked upon as an empty word, in which it is considered really criminal to disturb the tranquillity of the state, to revolt against the lawful authorities: in such a country, I say, it is less dangerous to discuss, with more or less freedom, questions arising from theories on the formation of society and the origin of the civil power, and to establish principles favorable to popular rights. But when these conditions do not exist, it is of little use to proclaim rigorous doctrines. To abstain from pronouncing the name of people, as a sacrilegious word, is a useless precaution. How can it be expected, that he who respects not Divine Majesty, should respect human? The conservative schools of our age, proposing to place a restraint upon the revolutionary torrent, and to tranquillize agitated nations, have almost always been infected with a certain failing, which consists in forgetting the truth which I have just noticed: royal majesty, authority of the government, supremacy of the law, parliamentary sovereignty, respect for established forms, and order: such are the terms they are constantly making use of. This is their palladium of society; and they condemn with all their might the state, insubordination, disobedience to the laws, insurrection, riot, anarchy; but they forget that these doctrines will not suffice, unless there be some fixed point to which the first link of the chain may be riveted. These schools, generally speaking, originate in the bosom of revolu 316 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY..ion; tLey are directed by men who have figured in revolutions, who have con tributed to prepare them, who have given them their force, and who, in order to attain the object of their ardent desires, feared not to ruin the edifice at its foundation, by diminishing the ascendency of religion and opening the way to moral relaxation. Hence they become powerless when prudence, or their own interests, bid them say, " Ve have gyoe far enough;" and, hurried on like the rest by the furious whirlwind, they have neither the means of stopping the movement nor of giving it a proper direction. We are continually hearing the Contrat Social of Rousseau condemned on account of its anarchical doctrines, whilst at the same time doctrines are circulated tending visibly to weaken religion. Can we possibly believe that the Contrat Social has alone caused all the commotions of Europe? It has doubtless produced serious evils, but still more serious ones have been caused by that irreligion which so deeply undermines the foundations of society, which loosens family bonds, and delivers up the individual to the caprice of his passions, with no other restraint or guide than the promptings of his own low egotism. Men of upright and reflecting minds begin to penetrate these truths. We find, nevertheless, in the political sphere, this error, which attributes to the action of civil government sufficient creative power to form, organize, and preserve society, independently of all moral and religious influences. It is of little consequence what be maintained in theory, if this error be acted upon in practice; and what avails the proclaiming of certain sound principles, if our conduct is not guided by them? These philosophico-political schools, which are desirous of ruling the destinies of the world, proceed in a way diametrically opposite to that of Christianity. The latter, whose principal object was heaven, did not, however, neglect the happiness of man upon earth; it addressed itself directly to the understanding and the heart, considering that the community is regulated by the conduct of individuals, and that, in order to have a well-regulated society, it was necessary to have good citizens. To proclaim certain political principles, to institute particular forms-such is the panacea of. some schools, who deem it possible to govern society without exercising a due influence over the intelligence and heart of man; reason and experience agree in teaching us what we may expect from such a system. Profoundly to impress the minds of men with religion and morality,-this is the first step towards the prevention of revolutions and disorganization. When these sacred objects have acquired their full influence over the hearts of men, there is no longer any thing to be apprehended from a greater or less latitude in political opinions. What confidence can a government repose in a man professing highly monarchical opinions, if he join impiety to them? Will he who refuses to give to God his rights, respect those of temporal kings? "The first thing," says Seneca, " is the worship of the gods, and faith in their existence; we are.next to acknowledge their majesty, and bounty, without which there is no majesty." " Primum est Deorum cultus, Deos credere; deinde reddere illis majestatem suam, reddere bonitatem, sine qua nulla majestas est." (Seneca, Epist. 95.) Observe how Cicero, the first orator and perhaps the greatest philosopher of Rome, expresses himself: "It is necessary," says he, "that the citizens should be first persuaded of the existence of gods, the directors and rulers of all things, in whose hands are all events, who are ever conferring on mankind immense benefits, who search the heart of man, who see his actions, the spirit of piety which he carries into the practice of religion, and who distinguish the life of the pious from that of the ungodly man." " Sit igitur jam hoc a principio persuasum civibus, dominos esse omnium rerum, ac moderatores deos; eaque quSe gerantur, eorum geri ditione ac numine, eosdemque optime de genere hominam mereri, et qualis quisque sit, quid agat, quid inde admittat, PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 317 qua mente, qua pietate colat religiones intueri: piorumque et impiorum habere rationem." (Cic. de Nat Deor. 2.) These truths should be profoundly impressed upon the mind: the evils of society do not principally emanate from political ideas or systems; the root of the. evil lies in religion; and if a check is not put upon irreligion, it is vain to proclaim the most rigid monarchical principles. IHobbes did certainly flatter kings a little more than Bellarmin; and yet, when these two writers are compared, what sensible monarch would not prefer as a subject the learned and pious controvertist? (30) CHAPTER LIII. ON THE FACULTIES OF THE CIVIL POWER. HAVING shown that.the Catholic doctrine upon the origin of the civil power does not include any thing but what is perfectly reasonable and reconcilable with the true interests of the people, let us discuss the second of the proposed questions. Let us inquire into the nature of the faculties of this power, and see whether under this aspect the Church teaches any thing favorable to despotism-to that oppression of which she is so calumniously accused of being a supporter. We invite our opponents to demonstrate the contrary, fully confident that they will find it more difficult to succeed in so doing, than to accumulate vague accusations, which serve only to lead too confiding minds astray. To sustain these charges properly, recourse should be had to texts of Scripture,-to tradition, to the decisions of Councils, or to those of Supreme Pontiffs, to passages of the Fathers; and it should be shown that these immoderately extend the bounds of power, with the design of placing undue restraint upon the liberty of the people, or of destroying it. But it will be said, if the sources retained their purity, the streams have been polluted by commentators; in other terms, theologians of latter ages, becoming the adulators of civil power, have powerfully labored to extend its faculties, and, consequently, to establish despotism. As many persons too readily claim the right of criticizing the doctors of what is termed the period of decline, flippantly censuring those illustrious men, without having ever taken the trouble to open their works, it is necessary for us to enter into some details on this subject, and to dispel prejudices and errors which are seriously injurious to religion, and not less so to science. The declamations and invectives of Protestants have induced certain minds to imagine that every idea of liberty would have disappeared from the heart of Europe, had it not been for the timely intervention of the pretended Reformation of the sixteenth century. According to this idea, Catholic theologians are represented as a crowd of ignorant monks, capable only of writing, in bad language and in still worse style, a heap of nonsense, the ultimate and only aim of which was to exalt the authority of Popes and kings, and to support intellectual and political oppression, obscurantism, and tyranny. That a portion should become the victim of illusion in matters the investigation of which is difficult and arduous; that the reader should suffer himself to be deceived by a writer on whose word he must either rely or remain in complete ignorance,-as, for example, in the description of a country or a phenomenon examined only by the narrator, -is nothing strange; but that any one should adhere to errors which a few moments spent in the most obscure library would eradicate, that the authors of the brilliant volumes of Paris should have the privilege of disfiguring with impunity the opinions of a writer lying covered with dust and forgotten in the same library, and perhaps on the same shelf upon which the former glitter; thai the reader should peruse with avidity the glossy pages of the newly-published 2n2 818 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. work, filling his mind with the writer's notions, without even so much as putting forth his hand to the voluminous tome within his reach, and which needs only to be opened to furnish at every page a refutation of the censures in which levity, if not bad faith, is so ready to indulge; is difficult to be conceived or excused in any man professing to be a lover of science, and a conscientious investigator of truth. A great number of writers would assuredly not be so ready and free to speak of what they have never studied, to analyze books which they have never read, if they did not reckon upon the docility and levity of their readers; they would certainly refrain from pronouncing magisterially upon an opinion, a system, or a school, in fine, upon the labors of many ages, from deciding the gravest questions by a sally of wit, if they found that the reader, seized in his turn with distrust, and particularly with the skepticism of the period, would not place implicit faith in their assertions, but would take the trouble to confront them with the facts to which they relate. Our ancestors did not consider themselves justified, I will not say in making an assertion, but even a single allusion, without giving careful references to the source of their information. Their delicacy on this point was carried to excess; but we have done wrong by going to the opposite extreme, and judging that we might dispense with all formality, even in the most important matters which imperiously demand the testimony of facts. But the opinions of ancient writers are facts, facts averred in their writings. By judging them hastily, without entering into details, without imposing upon ourselves the obligation of quoting authorities, we incur the suspicion of falsifying history, and history, I repeat, the most precious, that of the human mind. The levity observable in certain writers proceeds, in a great measure, from the character which science has assumed in our days.' There is no longer any particular science, but only a general one, embracing them all, and including in its immense circle all branches of knowledge. Consequently, minds of ordinary capacity are obliged to remain satisfied with vague notions, unfortunately only serving to stimulate abstraction and universality. Never was knowledge so much generalized as now, and never was it more difficult to obtain deserved renown for wisdom. In every aspirant to scientific excellence the state of science requires a laborious activity in the acquisition of knowledge, profound reflection to regulate and direct it, a comprehensive and penetrating view to simplify and concentrate it, an intellect of a high order, elevating him to the regions in which science has established her abode. How many men are endowed with these qualifications? But let us revert to the subject. Catholic theologians are so far from favoring despotism, that I doubt much whether it would be possible to find better books than theirs for enabling us to form clear and just ideas of the faculties of power. I will even add that, generally speaking, they incline, in a very remarkable manner, to the development of true liberty. The great type of theological schools, the model to the contemplation of which they have constantly turned during several centuries, are the works of St. Thomas of Aquin; and we may with full confidence defy our opponents to find us a jurist or philosopher who expounds with more lucidity, wisdom, noble independence, and generous dignity, the principles to which civil power ought to adhere. His Treatise upon Laws is immortal, and whoever has fully comprehended it has no further information to acquire respecting the great principles which ought to guide the legislator. You think lightly of past times, imagining that till now nothing was known of politics or public right; and in your imagination you invent an incestuous alliance between religion and despotism, fancying you have discovered in the distant obscurity of the cloister, the plot contrived by this infamous pact. But have you heard the opinion of a religious of the thirteenth century upon the nature of law? You already imagine that you see in hiq ideas force dominating over all, and constantly invoking PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 319 religion the better to disguise his rude snares with a few falsehoods. Learn, then, that you could not yourself have given a milder definition of law. You would never have thought, as he has done, of excluding from it the idea of force; you could never have conceived how, in so few words, he has managed to say all, and with such exactitude, such lucidity, in terms so favorable to the true liberty of the people and to the dignity of man. The definition here spoken of being the summary of his entire doctrine, and at the same time the guide which has directed theologians, may be considered as an abridgment of theological doctrines in their relation to the faculties of civil power. It presents to us at a single glance what were, in this point of view, the predominating principles amoLg Cathdlics. Civil power acts upon society through the medium of the law; and, according to St. Thoias, the law is, " a rule dictated by reason, the aim of which is the public good, and promulgated by him who has the care of society." " QuMedam rationis ordinatio ad bonum commune, et ab eo qui curam communitatis habet promulgata." (1, 2, quest. 90, art. 4.) A rule dictated by reason, rationis ordinatio. Here by one word despotism and force are banished.; here is the principle that the law is not a pure effect of the will. The celebrated maxim, Quod princpip pacuit legis habet vigorem, is here corrected. Although capable of a reasonable and just interpretation, this maxim was, nevertheless, incorrect, and inclined to flattery. A celebrated writer of our days has devoted numerous pages to proving that legitimacy has not its origin in the will of man, but in reason, inferring from this that what ought to command men is not in the will of another man, but reason. With much less pomp, but not less solidity and conciseness, the holy Doctor expresses this idea in the words above quoted, rationis ordinatio. On reflection we find that despotism, arbitrary power, and tyranny are nothing else than the absence of reason in power, the domination of the will. When reason commands, there is legitimacy, justice, liberty; when the will alone commands, there is illegitimacy, injustice, despotism. Hence the fundamental idea of all law is, that it be in accordance with reason, that it be an emanation from reason, an application of reason to society; and the will, in giving its sanction to law and carrying it into execution, should be merely auxiliary to reason, its instrument, its arm. It is evident that, without the action of the will, there is no law; for acts of pure reason, without the co-operation of the will, are thoughts and not commands. They enlighten the mind, but do not produce action. It is, therefore, impossible to conceive the existence of law without the combined operation of the will and of reason. But this is no reason why we should not consider all law to have a rational foundation and to be conformable to reason, that it may merit the name of law. These observations have not escaped the penetration of the holy Doctor; he examines them, and dispels the error of believing that the law consists in the mere will of the prince. He expresses himself as follows: "Reason receives its motive power from the will, as we have observed above (quaest. 17, art. 1;) for whilst the will seeks the end, reason enjoins the means of its attainment; but the will, to have the force of law, must be guided by reason. In this sense only can the will of a sovereign be said to have the force of law; in any other sense it would not be law, but injustice." "Ratio habet vim movendi a voluntate, ut supra dictum est. (Qusest. 17, art. 1.) Ex hoc enim quod aliquis vult finem, ratio imperat de his que sunt ad finem, sed voluntas de his quae imperantur, ad hoc quod legis rationem habeat, oportet quod sit aliqua ratione regulata; et hoc modo intelligitur quod voluntas principis habet vigorem legis; alioquin voluntas principis magis esset iniquitas quan lex." (Qusest. 90, art. 1.) These doctrines of St. Thomas are the same as those of all theologians. Impartiality and good sense will tell us whether they are favorable to absolutism 820 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. and despotism, whether they are in any way opposed to true liberty, whether they are not eminently conformable to the dignity of man. These doctrines form the most explicit and conclusive proclamation of the limits of civil power, and they certainly have in this respect more weight than the declarations of imprescriptible rights. That which humbles man, wounds in him the feeling of a just independence, and introduces despotism into the world, is the will of man commanding and exacting submission merely because it is his will; but by submitting to reason, being guided by her dictates, we are not degraded; on the contrary, we are elevated, we are dignified, for we live conformably to eternal order and to the divine will. The obligation of being subject to the law does not originate in the will of another, but in reason. Theologians, however, have not considered the latter of itself sufficient to command. They derive the sanction of the law from a higher source; when the conscience of man was to be acted upon, to be bound by duty, they could find nothing in the sphere of created things capable of attaining so high an object. "Human laws, if they are just," says the holy Doctor, " are binding in conscience, and they derive their power from the eternal law, from which they are formed, according to what is said in Proverbs, chap. viii.,'By Me kings reign, and the lawgivers decree just things.'" "Si quidem justre sunt, habent vim obligandi in foro conscientise a lege eterna, a qua derivantur, secundum illud Proverb. cap. 8, per me reges regnant, et legum conditores justa decernunt." (1, 2, qurest. 96, art. 3.) This proves, according to St. Thomas, that just law is derived not exactly from human reason, but from the eternal law; and that this is what makes it binding upon conscience. This is doubtless more philosophical than to seek the obligatory force of laws in private reason, in pacts, or in the general will. In this manner the titles, the true titles of humanity are explained, a reasonabie limit is placed upon civil power, and obedience is easily obtained; the rights and duties of governments, as well as those of subjects, are established upon solid and indestructible foundations; the nature of power, society, command, and obedience become perfectly comprehensible. It is no longer the will of one man predominating over that of his fellow-man; it is not his reason, but reason emanating from God,' or more properly speaking the reason of God, the eternal law, God Himself. A sublime theory, in which power finds its rights, its duties, its force, its authority, its prestige, and in which society possesses its safest guarantee of order, well-being, and true liberty; a theory which divests authority of the will of. man, since it changes this will into an instrument of the eternal law, into a divine ministry, whose aim is the public good, ad bonum commune. This, according to St. Thomas, is also one of the essential conditions of law. It has been asked, Whether kings are made for the people, or the people for kings? Such a question could only arise from a want of due reflectian upon the nature of society, its object, and its origin, and upon the intent of power. The concise expression above cited, ad bonum commune, is a fitting answer to this question. "Laws," says the holy Doctor, " may be unjust in two ways; either by being opposed to the commonweal, or by having an improper aim, as when a government imposes upon its subjects onerous laws, which do not serve the common interest, but rather cupidity and ambition. Such laws are rather injustices than laws." "Injustae autem sunt leges dupliciter; uno modo per contrarietatem ad bonum commune, e contrario predictis; vel ex fine, sicut cum aliquis praesidens leges imponit, onerosas subditis non pertinentes ad utilitatem communem, sed magis ad propriam cupiditatem vel gloriam:..... Et hujusmodi magis sunt violentire quam leges." (1, 2, q. 96, art. 4.) From this doctrine it follows, that command must be exercised for the well-being of all; and, failing mn this condition, it is unjust: governors are invested with it only for the advantage of the governed. Kings are not, as some philosophers, PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 321 regardless of the most palpable inconsistencies, have absurdly maintained, the ilaveis of their people; neither is their power a simple commission without any real authority, and continually subject to the caprice of their people; but, at the same time, the people are not the property of their kings. The latter can, by no means, consider their subjects as slaves, to be.disposed of at their freewill: governments are not, by any means, the absolute arbiters of the lives and fortunes of the governed; they are bound to watch over them, not as a master over slaves from whom he derives profit, but as a father over the son whom he loves and whose happiness he has at heart. "The kingdom is not made for the king, but the king for the kingdom," says the holy Doctor, from whom I continue to quote; and, in a style remarkable for its force and freedom, he continues as follows: "for God has constituted kings to rule and govern, and to secure to every one the possession of his rights; such is the aim of their institution; but if kings, turning things to their own profit, should act otherwise, they are no longer kings, but tyrants." (D. Ih. de Reg. Princ. cap. 11.) From this doctrine it is evident, that the people are not made for kings; that the subject is not made for the ruler; but that all governments have been established for the good of society, and that this alone should be the compass to guide those who are in command, whatever be the form of government From the president of the most insignificant republic to the most powerful monarch, none are exempt from this law; for it is a law anterior to society,-a law which presided at the formation of society, and which is superior to human law, inasmhch as it emanates from the Author of all society, from the source of all law. No, the people are not made for kings; kings are all appointed for the good of the people: and if this object is not accomplished, the government is useless; and this affects the republic as well as the monarchy. To flatter kings with opposite maxims is to ruin them. Religion has not, at any time, done this; this was not the language of those illustrious men who, clothed in the sacerdotal habit, delivered to the powerful ones of the earth the messages of Heaven. " Kings, princes, magistrates," cries out the venerable Palafox,." all jurisdiction is ordained by God for the preservation of His people, not for their destruction; for defence, not for offence; for man's right, and not for his injury. They who maintain that kings can do as they please, and who establish their power upon their will, open the way to tyranny. Those who maintain that kings have power to do as they ought, and what is necessary for the preservation of their subjects and of their crowns, for the exaltation of faith and religion, for the just and right'administration of justice, the preservation of peace and the support of just war, for the due and becoming eclat of regal dignity, the honorable maintenance of their houses and families, speak the truth without flattery, throw open the gates to justice, and to magnanimous and royal virtues." (Hist. Real. Sagrada, lib. i. cap. 11.) When Louis XIV. said, "I am the state," he had not learned this maxim either from Bossuet, Bourdaloue, or Masillon. Pride, exalted by so much grandeur and power, and infatuated by base adulators, was here speaking by his mouth. How unsearchable are the ways of Providence! The corpse of this man, who said he was the state, was insulted at his funeral; and, before the lapse of a century, his grandson suffered death on the scaffold! Thus the crimes of families are expiated, as well as those of nations. When the measure of His indignation is filled up, the Lord reminds terrified man that the God of mercy is likewise a God of vengeance, and that, as He opened upon the world the floodgates of heaven, so also He lets loose upon kings and nations the tempests of revolution. When once the rights and duties of power are founded upon a base as solid as that of their divine origin, when once they become established by a rule as exalted as that of the eternal law, there is no longer any necessity for extolling or exag41 322 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. gerating power, nor of attributing to it faculties to which it has no claim; and, on the other hand, it is no longer necessary to exact from it the falfilment of its obligations with that imperious haughtiness which enervates by humiliating it. Flattery and menace become alike needless when there are other resources for exciting it to action, and other barriers for restraining it within due bounds. The statue of the king, it is true, is not set up in the public squares as an object for the people's adoration; but, on the other hand, the king is no longer placed at the mercy of democrats, soon to become an object of mockery and derision, the contemptible laughing-stock of demagogues. Observe the moderation and mildness of the definition we have just analysed! It does not contain a single word which can wound the most delicate susceptibility of the most ardent partisans of public liberty. The law, according to this definition, consists in the rule of reason; the common weal is its only aim; and when the authority of him who promulgates and executes it is spoken of, there is no mention made of any sovereignty, no expression is used indicative of slavish subjection, the most measured term which it was possible to select is made use of-care: Qui CURAM communitatis habet. Bear in mind, that the author here quoted is accustomed to weigh his words like precious metal, and to employ them with the most scrupulous delicacy, pausing a long time, when necessary, to explain any that may present the least ambiguity, and you will then understand what ideas this great man entertained upon power; you will discover whether the spirit of oppressive doctrines. could have prevailed in the Catholic schools, in which this Doctor was, and is still, acknowledged as an almost infallible oracle. Compare the definition given by St. Thomas, and adopted by all theologians, with that which Rousseau has given. In that of St. Thomas, law is the expression of reason; in that of Rousseau, the expression of will: in the former, it is an application of the eternal law; in the latter, the product of general will. On which side are wisdom and good sense? Law was understood among the nations of Europe as it is explained by St. Thomas and all the Catholic schools; and tyranny was banished from Europe, Asiatic despotism was impossible, the admirable institution of European monarchy was established. At a later period, Rousseau's explanation was adopted, and then came the Convention, with its scaffolds and its horrors. Publicists have already nearly abandoned the theory of " a general will;" and even those who contend for the sovereignty of the people, do not maintain that the will of all the citizens should constitute the law. The law, say they, is not the expression of general will, but of general reason. The philosopher of Geneva would have the will of individuals collected, the aggregate of which he.termed the general will. In like manner, the publicists of whom we are speaking are of opinion that it is necessary to collect, amongst the governed, the greatest amount of reason, and to give this to the government for its guidance, the governing body being merely an instrument for the application of it. It is not men who command, say they, but the law; and the law is nothing else than reason and justice. This theory, so far as it is correct, and apart from the applications which might be made of it, is not a discovery of modern science; it is a traditional principle of all Europe, which presided at the formation of society, and has given to civil power an organisation differing widely from those of antiquity, and equally so from those of modern times that have not participated in our civilisation. This, on close examination, appears to be the reason why European monarchies, even the most absolute, have been so very different from the Asiatic. A singular phenomenon: at the very time when society among us had no legal guarantees against the power of kings, it still had other very forcibie ones which were purely moral. Modern science cannot, therefore, claim PROTESTANTISM CQMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 323 the discovery of a new principle.of government; it has unknowingly resuscitated the ancient one. By rejecting the doctrine of Rousseau, instead of making, according to the vulgar expression, a step in advance, it retrograded; but to retrograde is not always to lose an advantage. What is or can be lost by receding from the brink of a precipice to enter upon a safe road? Rousseau complains, and with reason, that certain writers have so far exaggerated the prerogatives of civil power, as to convert mankind into a common herd, of which rulers could dispose to serve their interest or caprice. Such reproaches, however, cannot be applied to the Catholic Church, nor to any of the illustrious schools sheltered in her bosom. The philosopher of Geneva makes a severe attack upon Hobbes and Grotius for having maintained this servile doctrine. Catholics have nothing to do with the cause of these two writers. I will observe, however, that it would not be just to place the latter upon a parallel with the former. Grotius has certainly afforded reason for the accusation. He maintains that there are cases in which governments are not for the benefit of the governed, but for that of the governing powers. " Sic imperia quvedam esse possunt comparata ad regum utilitatem." (De Jure Belli et Pacis, lib. i. cap. 3.) But, whilst we acknowledge that this principle has a dangerous tendency, we grant that the doctrines of the Dutch writer do not upon the whole tend to the total ruin of morality. By rendering Grotius his due share of justice, we prevent any exaggeration of the evil which may exist on the side of our opponents; it must now be permintted to Catholic hearts to remark with noble satisfaction, that such doctrines could never be established amongst the professors of the true faith, and that the fatal maxims which lead to oppression have originated precisely among those who have deviated from the teaching of the Chair of St. Peter. No; Catholics have never brought under discussion whether kings have an unlinrted power over the lives and fortunes of their subjects, to such a degree as to admit of no opposition, whatever be the excess of the absolutism and despotism exercised over them. Whenever flattery raised its voice to exaggerate the royal prerogative, this voice was immediately silenced by the unanimous outcry of the supporters of sound doctrine. Witness the remarkable example of a solemn retractation imposed by the tribunal of the Inquisition upon a preacher who had exceeded his bounds. Not so in England, a country proverbial for its hatred of Catholicity. Whilst here, in Spain, it was forbidden under a severe penalty to circulate maxims so degrading, in England the question was proposed with the greatest graity, and writers upon law were divided in their sentiments. (See end of chapter 39.) Every impartial reader has already been able to form an opinion on the value of declamations against the right divine, and on that pretended affinity of Catholic doctrines with despotism and slavery. The exposition of these doctrines which I have just given is certainly not founded upon vain reasoning, sought out on purpose to darken the question. I have not in any way shunned the difficulty. The question was, to know in what these doctrines consisted. I have shown clearly, that those who calumniate them do not understand them, and that we may even be allowed to suppose chat they have never taken the trouble to examine them, such is the levity and ignorance with which they express themselves. Perhaps I have adduced too many facts and quotations; but let the reader bear in mind, that my object is not to present him with a code of doctrines, but to give to this point of doctrine an historical investigation. Now, history does not call for discourses, but facts; and in matters of doctrine, the sentiments of autlfors are facts. Whilst beholding the salutary reaction now taking place in favour of sound principles, let us avoid giving an incomplete statement of the truth. For the cause of religion it is highly important that 324 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. its advocates should be free from even the most remote suspicion of dishonesty or dissimulation. On this account, I have, without hesitation, given in their integrity the doctrines laid down by Catholic writers, just as I find them in their works. By misrepresenting and confounding facts, Protestants and unbelievers have succeeded in deceiving; let me hope that, by explaining and elucidating them, I shall not be unsuccessful in removing the deception. I purpose examining, in the. remaining part of this work, some other questions relating to the same subject-questions perhaps n t more important, but certainly more delicate. And for this reason, I was obliged to smooth the'way, that I might proceed with more liberty and ease. I have hitherto made the cause of religion defend itself with its own weapons, without borrowing the support of auxiliaries which were superfluous. I shall proceed in the same course, fully convinced that Catholicity can only lose by any line of vindication that identifies it with political interests, and confines it within a circle too limited for its immensity. Empires appear and disappear; the Church of Christ will last till the end of time. Political opinions undergo changes and modificatibns; the august dogmas of our religion remain immutable. Thrones rise and fall; and the rock upon which Jesus Christ has built His Church stands unshaken throughout the course of time, ever defying the powers of hell. When we take up arms in her defence, let us be impressed with the importance of our mission; let there be no exaggeration, no flattery-the pure truth in measured, but accurate and firm language. In addressing ourselves to the people, in proclaiming the truth to kings, let us bear in mind that religion is above politics, and God above kings and people. CHAPTER LIV. ON RESISTANCE TO THE CIVIL POWER. THE doctrines of Catholicity, therefore, in reference both to the origin and the exercise of civil power, are unobjectionable. Let us now proceed to another point-one of greater delicacy and difficulty, if not of more importance. To state the question frankly, without any subterfuge or evasion: " Is it allowable in any case to resist the civil power?" It is impossible to speak more distinctly, or to employ more precise and simple terms in stating this question, which is the most important, the most difficult, and the most startling of any that the subject we have in hand presents for our investigation. We know that Protestantism from its commencement proclaimed the right of insurrection against civil power; and no one is ignorant of the fact that Catholicity has ever preached up obedience to this power; so that if the former has been from its infancy an element of revolution and of overthrow, the latter has been an element of tranquillity and good order. This distinction might induce us to believe that Catholicity favors oppression, since it leaves the people without arms to defend their liberty. " You preach up obedience to the civil powers," our adversaries will say; "you pronounce, in all cases, an anathema upon any insurrection which attacks them; should tyranny prevail, therefore, you become its most'powerful auxiliaries; for, by your doctrine, you arrest the arm ready to be raised in defence of liberty; you stifle with the cry of conscience the indignation awakened in generous hearts." This is a serious charge, which compels us to elucidate, as far as possible, this important point, and to distinguish in it truth from error, certainty from doubt. Some men would shrink from the investigation of such questions, and prefer drawing a veil over them-a veil which they venture not to raise, lest they should find an abyss. And assuredly their timidity is not inexcusable; for PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. S25 there are abysses unfathomable, and dangers that strike the mind with awe One false step may lead to destruction; one move in a wrong direction may let loose tempests that would lay society in ruins. Whilst, however, I willingly admit the pure intentions of such persons, I may be permitted to observe, that their prudence is quite thrown away, that their foresight and precaution are of no avail. Whether they investigate these questions or not, they are investigated, agitated, and decided, in a manner that we must deplore; and, worse still, the theories thence arising have been reduced to practice. Revolutions are no longer confined to books, they have become realities; quitting the quiet path of mere speculative philosophy, they are to be seen in the streets and in the public squares. Since, then, things have come to such a pass, why seek palliatives, make use of restrictions, or invoke silence? Let us tell the truth, just as it is, without concealment; since it is the truth, it will neither shrink before abundance of knowledge, nor the attacks of error. It is truth; its manifestation, its diffusion can have no injurious effect. In a word, God, who is the Author of societies, had no need of establishing them upon falsehood. This candor is the more necessary, because political changes may have led some persons to disavow the truths we are discussing, or no longer to. understand them aright; whilst others imagine that obedience to legitimate authority has been taught only by a party anxious to make this doctrine the foundation of their tyranny. Men of erroneous opinions and evil intentions have their own codes, to which they have recourse whenever it will forward their designs: their fatal errors or their sordid interests form the rule of their conduct; this is the source of their knowledge and of their inspirations. Men, therefore, endowed with a pure heart and with upright intentions, should know what to hold by in political oscillations; it is no longer sufficient for them to have a general knowledge of the principle of obedience to the legitimate authorities; they must also be acquainted with their applications. It is true that, in conflicts arising from civil discord, many men throw aside their own convictions to accommodate themselves to the exigencies of their interests; but it is no less certain, that there is still to be found a great number of conscientious men who adhere to them. We may also add, that the generality of the individuals composing a nation, not being usually in the urgent necessity of choosing between the sacrifice of their convictions and the risk of grave and imminent peril, those who entertain them usually find means to make their influence felt/in preventing great evils or in remedying them. According to certainpessimistes, reason and justice are for ever banished from the earth, leaving it a prey to self-interest, and substituting for the dictates of conscience the designs of egotism. In their estimation,'it is labor in vain to discuss and decide questions which may guide us in practice; for, according to them, whatever a man's conviction may be in theory, his practical decision will always be the same. It is my happiness, or misfortune, to take a different view of the case, and to believe that there still exist in the world, and particularly in Spain, men of profound convictions, and possessed of sufficient strength of mind to regulate their conduct by those convictions. The strongest proof that the inutility of doctrines is exaggerated, is the zeal evinced by all parties to lay hold of them. Whether from interest or from delicacy, all appeal to doctrines; and this interest or delicacy would not exist, if doctrines did not possess a powerful ascendency in society. Nothing, in discussion, is more perplexing than the introduction of several questions at the same time; and for this reason, I shall proceed in such a manner as to distinguish those which present themselves here. I will resolve, one by one, those which relate to our object, and pass over those which are foreign to it. Above all, we must beal in mind the general principle at all times inculcated by Catholicity, viz. the obligation of obeying legitimate authority. Let us now see how this principle 2C 826 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. is to be applied. In the first place, Are we to obey the civil power when it corn mands something that is evil in itself? No, we are not; for the simple reason that what is evil in itself is forbidden by God; now, we must obey God rather than men. In the second place, Are we to obey the civil power when it interferes in matters not included in the circle of its faculties? No; for, with regard to these matters. it is not a power. From the very supposition that its faculties do not extend so far, we affirm that, in this point of view, it is not a real power. Besides, what I have advanced does not exactly and exclusively concern spiritual matters, to which I appear to allude. I apply this restriction of civil power also to matters purely temporal. It is necessary to refer here to what I have said in another part of this work, viz., that whilst we grant to civil power sufficient force and attributes for the maintenance of order and unity in the social body, it is just nevertheless, that we should not allow it to absorb the individual and the family, so as to destroy their individuality, to deprive them of their own sphere, and leave them only the means of acting as an integral part of society. This is one of the distinguishing features between Christian and pagan civilisation: the latter, in its zeal for the preservation of social unity, excluded every individual and family right; the former, on the contrary, has amalgamated the interests of the individual with those of families and society, so that they neither destroy nor embarrass each other. Thus, besides the sphere within which the action of the civil power is properly confined, there are others into which it has no right to enter, and in which individuals and families live without clashing with the colossal force of the government. It is just to observe here, that Catholicity has done much for the maintenance of this principle, which is a strong guarantee of the liberty of the people. The separation of the two powers temporal and spiritual, the independence of the latter with respect to the former, the distinction of the persons in whom it is vested: such has been one of the principal causes of this liberty, which, under different forms of government, is the common inheritance of European nations. Ever since the foundation of the Church, this principle of the independence of the spiritual power has at all times served, by the mere fact of its existence, to remind men that the rights of civil power are limited, that there are things beyond its province, cases in which a man may say, and ought to say, I will not orey. This is another of those cases in which Protestantism has given a wrong direction to the civilisation of Europe, and in which, far from opening the way to liberty, it has riveted the chains of slavery. Its first step was the abolition of tlie Pontifical authority, the overthrow of the hierarchy, the refusal to grant to the Church any kind of power whatever, and the placing of spiritual supremacy in the hands of princes; that is to say, it has retrograded towards pagan civilisation, in which we find the sceptre united with the pontificate. The grand political problem was precisely the separation of these two powers, in order to save society from subjection to one sole unlimited authority, exercising its faculties without restraint, and from which might consequently be expected vexation and oppression. This separation was effected without any political views, any fixed design on the part of men, wherever Catholicity was established; for her discipline required and her dogmas inculcated it. Is it not strange that the advocates of theories of equilibrium and counterpoise, who have so loudly extolled the utility of separating powers, and of dividing authority among them with a view to prevent it from being converted into tyranny, should not have noticed the profound wisdom of this Catholic doctrine, even when considered merely in a social and political point of view? But no; it is remarkable, on the contrary, that all modern revolutions have manifested a decided tendency towards the amalgamation of. the civil and ecclesiastical PROTESTANT1SM CAilPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 327 powers-a convincing proof that these revolutions have proceeded from an origin contrary to'the generative principle of European civilisation, and that instead of guiding it towards perfection, they have rather served to lead it astray. The union of Church and State in England, under the reigns of Henry VIII. and Elizabeth, produced the most cruel despotism; and it that country at a later period acquired a higher degree of liberty, it was not assuredly owing to that religious authority given by Protestantism to the head of the state, but in spite of it. It is worthy of remark, that in later times, when England entered upon a more extensive sphere of liberty, it was owing to the diminution of the civil power on all matters appertaining to religion, and to a greater development of Catholicity, opposed in its very principles to this monstrous supremacy. In the North of Europe, where the Protestant system has also prevailed, civil authority has been unlimited; and even at the present time, we find the Emperor of Russia indulging in the most barbarous persecutions against Catholics; more distrustful of those who defend the independence of spiritual power, than of the revolutionary clubs. The autocrat is devoured with a thirst for unlimited authority, and a decided instinct urges him to attack in particular the Catholic religion, which forms his principal obstacle. It is remarkable with what uniformity all power, in this respect, tends to despotism, whether under a revolutionary or monarchical form. Impatient of the restraint laid upon him by the spiritual power, Louis XIV. attempted to crush the power of Rome. He was urged to it by the same motives as the Constituent Assembly; the monarch rested his cause upon the rights of royalty, and the liberties of the Gallican Church-the Constituent Assembly invoked the rights of the nation, and the principles of philosophy; but in the main they were actuated by one and the same motive, that of ascertaining whether or not civil power should be restricted: in the former case, it was monarchy tending to despotism; in the latter, democracy advancing to the terrors of the Convention. When Napoleon wished to bruise the head of the revolutionary hydra, to reorganize society, to create a power, he made use of religion as the most potent element. Catholicity was the only predominating religion in France; to this he had recourse, and signed the Concordat. But, observe, that no sooner did he imagine his work of reparation complete, and the critical moment of the establishment of his power passed, than he began to think of extending it, of freeing himself from all restraint. He began to look upon that pontiff, whose presence at his coronation had so much gratified him, with a more supercilious eye. At first he had some serious disputes with him, and ended by becoming his most inveterate enemy. These observations, to which I invite the attention of eery reflecting mind, acquire more importance from the consideration of what has taken place in our own religious and most Catholic monarchy. In spite of the preponderating influence of the Catholic religion in Spain, the principle of resistance to the court of Rome has ever been preserved in a particular and remarkable manner; thus, whilst the Austrian dynasty and the Bourbons endeavoured to lay aside our old laws, so far as they were favourable to political liberty, they preserved as a sacred deposit the traditional resistance of Ferdinand the Catholic, of Charles V., and of Philip II. The deep root which Catholicity had taken in Spain doubtless prevented matters from being carried to extremes; but it is no less true that the germ existed, and was handed down from generation to generation, as if its complete development was expected at some more favourable period. This fact was placed in peculiarly strong relief at the time of the 3uurbon accession, when the monarchy of Louis XIV. was introduced amongst us, and the last vestiges of the ancient liberties of Castile, Aragon, Valencia, and Catalonia disappeared; +he mania for kingly rights was at its height in the 328 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. reigns of Charles III. and Charles IV. Strange coincidence! The epoch in which the greatest jealousy was entertained against the Court of Rome and the independence of Church authority, was exactly that in which ministerial despotism was in its greatest force, and in which there was seen something still worse-the despotism of a favorite, with all its pitiful show. True, the ideas of the French schools were at that time influencing Spain; and of this neither the King, nor, probably, some of his ministers, were aware: but this does not militate against the reflections we are making; on the contrary, it comes in support of them, by showing their applicability to circumstances quite dissimilar, and consequently their soundness and importance. The object here aimed at was the overthrow of the established authority, to make way for another equally unlimited; to effect this, it was necessary to urge on the former to abuse its prerogatives, and, at the same time, to establish precedents to fall back upon, so soon as the revolution should have displaced the absolute monarchy. What important reflections'are here presented to us! What strange analogies rise to view between circumstances apparently most antagonistic! In our times, we have seen bishops brought to trial from the same motives that were alleged in a celebrated cause in the reign of Charles III.; and the Supreme Tribunals of our own days have heard from the lips of their fiscals* the same doctrines formerly propounded by those of the (oouncil. Thus do doctrines meet, and thus, by different ways, do we arrive at the same end. According to the ancient fiscals, the authority of the king was every thing; the rights of the crown, like the ark of old, were held so sacred, that to touch, or even to look upon them, was accounted a sacrilege. Well, the ancient mo. narchy has disappeared-the throne is no longer any thing more than a shadow of what it once was-the Revolution l4as triumphed over it; and yet, despite a change so profound, it. is not long since a fiscal of the Supreme Tribunal, charging a bishop with an offence against the rights of the civil power, made use of these words: " In the state, a leaf.cannot be plucked without the permission of government." These words need no comment; the writer of these lines heard them uttered; and this plain, unequivocal declaration of arbitrary power seemed to him to throw a new ry of light upon history. The gravity and importance of this subject required this digression; it was incumbent on me to show how far the Catholic principle of the independence of spiritual power may serve the cause of true liberty. This principle, in fact, eminently teaches that the faculties of civil power are limited, and it is, consequently, a perpetual condemnation of despotism. To revert to the original question. It remains, then, established, that we are to be subject to the civil power so long as it does not go beyond its proper limits; but that the Catholic doctrine never enjoins obedience when civil power oversteps the limits of its faculties. It will not be uninteresting to the reader to learn how the principle of obedience was understood by one of the most illustrious interpreters of Catholic doctrine-by the holy Doctor so often cited. According to him, whenever laws are unjust (and observe, that, in his opinion, they may be so in many ways), they are not binding on conscience, unless for fear of creating scandal, or causing greater evils; that is to say, that, in certain cases, an unjust law may become obligatory, not by virtue of any duty which it imposes, but from motives of prudence. These are his words, to which I crave the reader's particular attention: "Laws are unjust in two ways; either because they are opposed to the common weal; or on account of their aim, as is the case when a government imposes upon its subjects onerous laws, not for the good of the t.ommonweal, but for the sake of self-interest or ambition; or on account of * Cr wnr attorneys, charged with the prosecution of criminal and other causes. PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 829 their author, as when any one makes a law without being invested with t roper faculties; again, they may be unjust in form, as when the taxes are unequally divided among the multitude, although in other respects tending to the public good. Such laws are rather outrages than laws; since, as St. Augustin observes (lib. i. de Lib. Arb cap. 5),'An unjust law does not appear to be a law.' Such laws, therefore, are not binding in conscience, unless, perhaps, for the avoiding of scandal and trouble-a motive which ought to induce man to give up his right, as St. Matthew observes:'And whosoever shall force thee to go one mile, go with him other two; and if any man will go to law with thee, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.' Laws may also be unjust in another point of view, when they are contrary to the will of God; as the laws of tyrants enforcing idolatry, or anything else contrary to divine law. With respect to such laws, it is not allowable, under any circumstances, to obey them; for, as it is said in the Acts of the Apostles,'We must obey God rather than man.'" "Injustae autem sunt leges dupliciter; uno modo per contrarietatem ad bonum commune e contrario praedictis, vel ex fine, sicut cum aliquis presidens leges imponit onerosas subditis non pertinentes ad utilitatem communem, sed magis ad propriam cupiditatem vel gloriam; vel etiam ex auctore, sicut cum aliquis legem fert ultra sibi commigsam potestatem; vel etiam ex forma cum inaequaliter onera multitudinis dispensantur, etiamsi ordinentur ad bonum commune; et hujusmodi magis sunt violentiae quam leges, quia sicut Augustinus dicit (lib. i. de Lib. Arb. cap. 5, parum a princ.) lex esse non videtur quse justa non fuerit, unde tales leges in foro conscientise non obligant, nisi forte propter vitandum scandalum vel turbationem, propter quod etiam homo juri suo cedere debet secundum illud Math. cap. v.'Qui te angariaverit mille passus, vade cum eo alia duo, et qui abstulerit tibi tunicam da ei et pallium.' Alio modo leges possunt esse injustse per contrarietatem ad bonum divinum, sicut leges tyrannorum inducentes ad idololatriam, vel ad quodcumque aliud quod sit contra legem divinam, et tales leges nullo modo licet observare, quia sicut dicitur Act. cap. v.:'Obedire oportet Deo magis luam hominibus.' " (D. Th. 1, 2, quaest. 90, art. 1.) This doctrine furnishes us with the following rules: 1. We cannot, under any circumstances, obey the civil power when its commands are opposed to the divine law. 2. When laws are unjust, they are not binding in conscience. 3. It may become necessary to obey these laws from motives of prudence; that is, in order to avoid scandal and commotions. 4. Laws are unjust from some one of the following causes: When they are opposed to the common weal-when their aim is not the good of the commonweal-when the legislator outsteps the limits of his facultieswhen, although in other respects tending to the good of the commonweal, and proceeding from competent authority, they do not observe suitable equity; for instance, when they divide unequally the public imposts. We have quoted and copied the venerable text whence these rules ate derived: their illustrious author has been the guide of all the theological schools during the last six centuries; his authority has never been called in question in these schools on points of dogma or morality; these rules may, therefore, be regarded as the recapitulation of the doctrines of Catholic theologians with reference to the obedience due to authority. We may now, without doubt. appeal with entire confidence to every man of good sense. Let him judge whether these doctrines are in the least inclined to despotism, whether they have the least tendency to tyranny, in fine, whether they aim the slightest blow at liberty. It is vain to seek in them the slightest appearance of flattery to the civil power, whose limits are marked out with rigorous severity; if it outsteps them, it is openly told, "Thy laws are not laws, but outrages; they 42 2c2 330 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. are not binding in conscience; and if, in some instances, thou art obeyed, it is not owing to any obligation, but to prudence, in order to avoid scandal and commotion; it is thenceforth such a dishonor to thee, that thy triumph, far from entitling thee to renown, assimilates thee to the robber who despoils the peaceable man of his garment, and to whom the latter, for the sake of peace, gives up his cloak also." If these are doctrines of oppression and despotism, we also are advocates for such oppression and despotism; for we cannot conceive doctrines more favorable to liberty. Upon these principles the admirable institution of European monarchy was founded. This teaching has created the moral defences by which that monarchy is surrounded; defences restraining it within the limits of its duties, even where political guarantees do not exist. The mind, wearied with foolish declamations against the tyranny of kings, and, on.the other hand, not less tired of the boisterous adulations lavished upon power in modern times, expands and rejoices on meeting with this pure, disinterested, and sincere expression of the rights and duties of governments and of people, on hearing this language, impressed with as much of wisdom as of upright, intention and generous freedom. What books were consulted by men making use of such language? The Scriptures, the Fathers, the collections of ecclesiastical documents. Could they have received their inspirations from the society which surrounded them? No; for in that same society disorder and confusion prevailed; sometimes a turbulent disobedience, at others despotism was predominant. And yet they speak with as much discretion, tact, and calmness as if they were living in the midst of well-regulated society. They were guided by divine revelation, which taught them truth. How often did they see it forgotten and trampled under foot! But uninfluenced by circumstances, however unfavorable, they wrote in a region far above the atmosphere of human passions. Truth is of all times; proclaim it ever, and God will effect the rest. (31) CHAPTER LV. ON RESISTANCE TO DE FACTO GOVERNMENTS. THE questions hitherto discussed relating to the obedience due to power are very grave; but those of resistance to it are still more important. Is it allowable, under any circumstances, in any supposition, to resist the civil power by physicalforce? Does there nowhere exist a deposing power? Iow far do Catholic doctrines extend on this subject? Such are the.extreme points we purpose to discuss. According to one system, obedience is due to a government from the very fact of its existence, even on the supposition that its existence is illegitimate. Now, it is important to demonstrate, at the very outset, the unsoundness of this doctrine, which is contrary to right reason, and has never been taught by Catholicity. In preaching obedience " to the powers that be," the Church speaks of powers that have a legitimate existence. The absurdity, that a simple fact can create right, can never become a dogma of Catholicity. Were it true that resistance would be unlawful, it would be equally true that an illegitimate government has a right to command; for the obligation to obey is correlative with the right to command; and an illegitimate government would, consequently, become legitimatised by the simple fact of its existence. This would legitimatise all usurpations; the most heroic resistance on the part of the people would be condemned; the world would be abandoned to the mere rule of force. No; that degrading doctrine is not true which derives legitimacy from usurpation; which says to a people conquered PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 881 and subjugated by any usurper whatever, " Obey your tyrant; his rights are founded on'force, and your obligation to him on your weakness." No; there cannot be truth in a doctrine that would efface from our history one of its brightest pages, that would entail disgrace upon a nation taking up arms to expel an usurper, struggling for its independence during a period of six years, and finally overthrowing the conqueror of Europe. If Napoleon had succeeded in establishing his power amongst us, the Spanish nation would still have maintained the right on account of which it revolted in 1808; victory could- not have rendered usurpation legitimate. The victims of the second of May did not legalise the command of Murat; and had even every corner of the peninsula been made a theatre of horrors similar to those witnessed on the Prado, the blood of martyred patriots, covering the usurper and his satellites with everlasting infamy, would only have confirmed the sacred right of revolting in defence of the throne, of national independence. We must repeat it: the simple fact does not create a right, either in private or public affairs; and so soon as such a principle is acknowledged, every idea of reason and justice disappears from the world. Those who may have wished to flatter governments with so fatal a doctrine, were not aware that this was the very way to ruin them, and to sow the seeds of usurpation and insurrection. What will be safe here below if we admit the principle, that success insures justice, and that the Conqueror is always the rightful ruler? Is not this throwing open a wide gate to ambition, and to every crime? Is it not exciting men to forget every idea of right, reason, and justice, to acknowledge no other rule than brute force? Governments protected by so strange a doctrine would assuredly owe little gratitude to their protectors: this, in fact, is no defence; it is an insult; it is more of a cruel sarcasm than an apology. To what, indeed, does it amount, and how would this doctrine sound? Why, as follows: "People, obey him who commands you; you say his authority is usurped; we do not deny it; but, by the very fact of his having attained his end, the usurper has acquired a right. He is, indeed, a robber who has attacked you on the highway; he has stolen your money; but, by the mere fact of your not being able to resist him, and being forced to deliver to him your purse, now that he is possessed of it, you ought to respect this money as an inviolable property: such is your duty. It is a robbery; but this robbery being a consummated act, you cannot now obtain redress for it." In this point of view the doctrine of consummated facts appears so much opposed to generally received ideas, that no reasonable man can seriously accept it. I do not deny that there are cases in which obedience, even to an illegitimate government, is to be recommended; when, for instance, we foresee that resistance would be useless, that it would only lead to new disorders, and to a greater effusion of blood: but in recommending prudence to the people, let us not disguise it under false doctrines-let us beware of calming the exasperation of misfortune by circulating errors subversive of all governments, of all society. It is worthy of remark, that all powers, even the most illegitimate, have a truer instinct than that manifested by the maintenance of such maxims. -All powers in the first moment of their existence, before commencing their operations, before proceeding to one single act, proclaim their legitimacy. They seek it in right divine and human, they establish it upon birth or electiod, they derive it from historical titles, or the sudden development of extraordinary events; but all tends to the same point, the pretension to legitimacy. They never speak of the mere fact of their existence; from the instinct that prompts their own preservation they learn better than to rely upon such grounds, since to do so would be to annihilate their authority, to destroy their prestige, to encourage revolt; in a word, to commit self-destruction. We have here the most explicit condemnation of the doctrine we are combating, for the m.-3t 832 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. shameless usurpers have more respect for good sense and the public con. science. It sometimes happens that doctrines the most erroneous assume a veil of gentleness and Christian meekness. We must overthrow the arguments that might be employed against us, by the advocates of blind submission to any power that happens to be established. "The Scriptures," they will say, "prescribe to us obedience to the authorities, without any distinction; the Christian, therefore, ought not to make any distinction, but submit with resignation to such as he finds established." In reply to this objection, I see the following very decisive answers. 1. Illegitimate authority is no authority at all; the idea of power involves the idea of right, without which it is mere physical power, that is, force. When, therefore, the Scriptures prescribe obedience to the authorities, it is the lawful authorities that are implied. 2. The sacred text, in enjoining us obedience to the civil power, tells us that it is ordained by God Himself, that it is the minister of God Himself; and it is evident that usurpation is never invested with so high a character. The usurper is perhaps the instrument of Providence, the scourge of Heaven, as Attila designated himself, but not the minister of God. 3. The sacred Scriptures prescribe obedience to the subject in relation to the civil power, in the same way as they prescribe it to the slave in relation to his master. But what sort of masters are here implied? Evidently such as exercised a legitimate dominion, as it was understood at the time, conformable'to the prevailing laws and customs; otherwise the Scriptures would require obedience from such slaves as were reduced to slavery by an abuse of power. Hence, as the obedience to masters prescribed by the Scriptures does not deprive the slave unjustly retained in servitude of his right, so also the obedience due to the established authorities should be restricted to the lawful authorities, and to cases in which prudence would dictate it in order to avoid commotion and scandal. In confirmation of the doctrine of mere de facto government, the conduct of the first Christians has been sometimes alleged. "They submitted," it is said, to the constituted authorities without even inquiring whether they were legitimate or not. At this epoch usurpations were frequent, the imperial throne was established by force, its occupants one after another owed their elevation to military insurrection, and to the assassination of their predecessors. We find, nevertheless, that Christians never meddled with the question of legitimacy; they respected the established power, and this power failing, they submitted without murmuring to the new tyrant who had usurped the throne." This argument, it cannot be denied, is very plausible, and presents at first sight a serious difficulty; a few reflections, however, suffice to show its extreme futility. In order that an insurrection against an unlawful power may be legitimate and prudent, those who undertake to overturn it should be sure of its illegitimacy, should have in view the substitution of a lawful power, and should count besides on the probability of the success of their enterprise. If these conditions are not fulfilled, the insurrection has no object; it is a mere fruitless attempt, an impotent revenge, which, instead of being useful to society, only causes bloodshed, only irritates the power attacked, and can have in consequence no other effect than to increase oppression and tyranny. None of the conditions here mentioned were in existence at the time we are speaking of; all that upright men could do was quietly to resign themselves to the calamitous circumstances of the times, and by fervent prayer to implore the Almighty to take compassion on mankind. When every thing was decided by force of arms, who could say whether such or such an emperor was lawfully established? Upon what rules was the imperial succession established? Where was legitimacy to be substituted for illegitimacy? Amongst the Romans-those vile, degraded beings, kissing the PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 838 chains of the first tyrant who offered them food and games? In the worthless posterity of those illustrious patricians who formerly gave laws to the universe?'Was it vested in the sons or in the family of some assassinated emlperor, when the laws had not established hereditary succession, when the sceptre of theempire was at the disposal of the legions, when it frequently happened that the emperor, the victim of usurpation, had been himself merely a usurper, who had mounted to the throne over the corpse of his rival? Did it exist in the ancient rights of those conquered nations'now reduced to simple dependencies of the empire, divested of all national spirit, having even lost the recollectioa of their former condition, without a thought capable of conducting them in the work of their emancipation, and destitute of resources against the colossal force of their masters? What object could any one have, under such circumstances, in making attempts against the established government? When the legions decided the fate of the world, alternately elevating and assassinating their masters, what could or what ought the Christian to do? The disciple of a God of peace and love, he could not take part in criminal scenes of bloodshed and tumult; authority was tottering and uncertain; it was not for him to decide whether it was legitimate or not; it only remained for him to submit to the power generally acknowledged, and at the arrival of one of those changes, at that time of so frequent occurrence, to yield the same obedience to the newlyestablished government. The interference of Christians in political disputes would only have served to bring into disrepute the holy religion they professed; it would have given to philosophers and idolaters a pretext for increasing the catalogue of black calumnies which they everywhere brought against the faith. Public report accused Catholicity of being subversive of governments; Christians would have furnished a pretext for extending and accrediting this unfounded report, the hatred of governments would have been redoubled, and the rigors of persecution. so cruelly exercised against the disciples of the cross would have been increased. Has this state of things ever existed but once, either in ancient or modern times? And could the conduct of the first Christians in this respect be made a rule for the Spaniards, for instance, at the time they resisted the usurpation of Bonaparte? Or could it be imitated by any other people in similar circumstances? Or will it be received as an argument in favor of every kind of usurpation? No; man, in becoming a Christian, does not cease to be a citizen, to be a man, to have his rights, and he acts in a praiseworthy manner whenever, within the bounds of reason and justice, he attempts to maintain these rights with fearless intrepidity. Don Felix Amat, Archbishop of Palmyra, in his posthumous work entitled Idea of the Church Militant, makes use of these words: " Jesus Christ, by his plain and expressive answer, Render to Ccesar the things that are Ccesar's, has sufficiently established, that the mere fact of a government's existence is suffinient for enforcing the obedience of subjects to it." What I have already advanced is enough, in my opinion, to show the fallacy of such an assertion; and, as I intend to revert to this subject, and investigate more attentively this author's opinion, and the reasons upon which he suppprts it, I shall not now attempt to enter upon its refutation. I will,'nevertheless, make one observation, which occurred to me on reading the passages in which the Archbishop of Palmyra developes it. His work was forbidden at Rome; and whatever may have been the motives for such a prohibition, we may rest assured that, in the case of a book advocating such doctrines, every man who is jealous of his rights might acquiesce in the decree of the Sacred Congregation. As the opportunity is favorable, we may make a few remarks upon consummated facts, which are so closely connected with the doctrine under discussion. Consummated implies something perfect in its kind; hence an act is consum. 334 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. mated when it has attained its completion. This word, applied to crimes, is opposed to mere attempt. We say an attempt at robbery, murder, or arson, when the undertaking to commit these crimes has been manifested by some act; for instance, the lock of a door has been broken, an attack has been made with a murderous weapon, combustible matter has been ignited-but the crime is not said to be consummated till the robbery, murder, or arson has actually been committed. Hence, in a political and social sense, we designate consummated facts an usurpation, completely overthrowing the legitimate power, and by means of which the usurper is already substituted in its place; a measure executed in all its points; such as the suppression of the regular clergy in Spain, and the confiscation of their property to the treasury; a revolution which has been triumphant, and which has entirely disposed of a country, as was the case with our American possessions. From this.explanation, we see clearly that a fact does not, by being consummated, change its nature; it still remains a simple fact-just or unjust, legal or illegal —as it was before. The most horrible outrages may also be termed consummated facts; yet, for all that, they do not cease to deserve disgrace and punishment. What, then, is the meaning of certain phrases continually uttered by some men? "We must respect consummated facts; we must always accept consummated facts; it is folly to resist consummated facts; it is a wise policy that yields to consummated facts." Far be it from me to assert that all those who establish these maxims, profess the fatal doctrines to which they give rise. We often admit principles, the consequences of which we reject; and point out a certain line of conduct as right, without attending to the abominable maxims in which it originates. In human affairs, good and evil, error and truth are so narrowly separated, and prudence so closely borders on culpable timidity,. that in theory, as well as in practice, it is not always easy to remain within the bounds prescribed by reason and the eternal principles of sound morality. If respect for consummated facts is mentioned, perverse men immediately iniclude in it the sanctioning of crime, the spoils of plunder secured to the robber, no hope of restitution left to the victims, and a gag put upon their mouths, to stifle their complaints. Others, I am aware, have no such design in making use of these words, but are the dupes of a confusion of ideas, arising from their not having distinguished between moral principles and public expediency. On this point, therefore, we must distinguish and define, which I will do in a few words. The simple consummation of a fact does not render it legitimate; and, consequently, it is not on this account alone worthy bf respect. The robber who has stolen does not acquire a right to the thing stolen; the incendiary who reduces a house to ashes is no less deserving of punishment, of being forced to make reparation, than if he had been arrested in the attempt. This is so evident and clear, that it cannot be called in question. To assert the contrary, is to become the enemy of all morality, of all justice, of all right; and to proclaim the exclusive rule of force and cunning. Consummated facts, appertaining to social and political order, do not change their nature; the usurper, who seizes upon the crown of his lawful predecessor; the conqueror, who, by mere force of arms, has subdued a nation, does not thereby acquire a right to its possession; the government, which by gross iniquities has despoiled entire classes of citizens, exacted undue contributions, abolished legitimate rights, cannot justify its acts by the simple fact of its having sufficient strength to execute these iniquities. That is equally evident; and if there is here any difference' at all, the crime is only the greater, from the greater gravity and extent of the wrongs committed, and of the scandal given to the public.. Such PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 835 are the principles of sound morality-individual morality, social morality; morality of the whole human race; immutable, eternal morality. Let us now examine the question of public expediency. In some instances, a consummated fact, in spite of all its injustice, all its immorality and atrocity, acquires such an ascendency, that by not accepting it, or by being determined to destroy it, we should let loose a train of troubles and commotions, and perhaps without effect. Every government is bound to respect justice, and to act in such a manner that its subjects may also respect it; but it should not command what will not be obeyed, when it is deprived of the means of enforcing obedience. In such a case, we should not commit an injustice by not attacking the illegal interests, or by not endeavoring to obtain redress for the victims; the government, in such a case, may be compared to a man who, beholding robbers loaded with the fruit of their theft, is without the means of forcing them to make restitution. If you suppose an impossibility, what does it avail to say that the government is not a single individual, but a defender of all legitimate interests? No one is bound to impossibilities. Observe, also, that this remark applies not only to a physical impossibility, but also to a moral one. Whenever, therefore, the government possesses the material means of obtaining reparation, a moral impossibility will be constituted, when the employing of those means would cause serious difficulties to the state, endanger the public peace, or sow the seeds of future insurrection. Order and public interest require the preference, for these are the primary objects of all government; consequently, that which cannot be accomplished without endangering them, ought to be considered as impossible. The application of these doctrines will always be a question of prudence, that cannot be subjected to any general rule. Depending as it does upon a thousand circumstances, it cannot be decided upon abstract principles; but by the consideration of existing facts, duly appreciated and considered by political tact. Such is the case of the respect due to consummated facts; the injustice of these facts is apparent; but we must not overlook their force. Not to attack them is not, necessarily, to sanction them. The legislator is bound to diminish the evil as far as possible; but not to risk an aggravation of it by attempting an impracticable reparation. As it is particularly injurious to society for great interests to remain insecure, and uncertain for the future, just means must be adopted, which, without occasioning complicity in the evil, may prevent the dangers of a doubtful situation, resulting from injustice itself. A just policy does not sanction injustice; but a wise policy never despises the importance of established facts. If such facts exist, and appear indestructible, it tolerates them; but without affording them the sanction of its participation or approval. Acting with dignity, it makes the best of difficulties; and in some sort allies the principles of eternal justice with the views of public expediency. We have a very striking case in point, which will place this matter in the clearest possible light. After the great evils, and the enormous acts of injustice perpetrated during the French Revolution, what possibility was there of making a complete reparation? In 1814, could every thing be restored to the position in which it stood in 1789? The throne overturned, all social distinctions levelled, and property broken up; who could reconstruct the ancient social edifice? No one. Such is the respect to be entertained for consummated facts, which might be more properly termed indestructible ones. To illustrate my idea still further, I will give it a very simple exemplification. A proprietor, driven from his possessions by a powerful neighbor, has not the means of repossessing himself of them. He has neither wealth'nor influence; and his spoliator abounds in both. If he have recourse to force, he will be vanquished; if to the tribunal, he will lose his cause; what, therefore, is he to do? To negotiate for an 236 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. accommodation, to obtain what he can, and be resigned to his fate. This is all that can be said; and it is remarkable, that such are the principles adopted by governments. History and experience teach us, that consummated facts are respected when they are indestructible; that is, when they possess in themselves sufficient force to make them respected; in any other case, they are not so. And nothing is more natural. Whatever is not founded upon right, can only be maintained by force. (32) CHAPTER LVI. HOW THE CIVIL POWER MAY BE LAWFULLY RESISTED. FROM what has been said in the foregoing chapters it follows, that it is allowable to resist illegitimate power by force. The Catholic religion does not enjoin obedience to governments existing merely defaco; for morality does not admit a mere fact, unsupported by right and justice. However, when power is in itself lawful, but in its exercise tyrannical, does our religion prohibit, in every instance, resistance by physical force; so that not to resist at all, forms a part of her dogmas? Is insurrection never allowable, in any supposition, for any motive? Although I have already eliminated many questions, it is necessary to draw here a fresh distinction, in order to fix exactly the point at which dogma ends, and opinions begin.,It is evident, in the first place, that an individual has no right to kill a tyrant on his own authority. The Council. of Constance, in its 15th session, condemned the following proposition as heretical: "Any vassal or subject may and should, lawfully and meritoriously, kill any tyrant. He may even, for this purpose, avail himself of ambushes, and wily expressions of affection or adulation; notwithstanding any oath or pact imposed upon him by the tyrant; and without waiting for the sentence or order of any judge." "Quilibet tyrannus potest et debet licite et meritorie occidi per quemcumque vassallum suum vel subditum, etiam per clanculares insidias, ct subtiles blanditias vel adulationes, non obstante quocumque praestito juramento, seu confoederatione factis cum eo, non expectata sententia vel mandato judicis cujuscumque." But does this decision of the Council of Constance constitute a prohibition of every kind of insurrection? No; it speaks of the murder of a tyrant by any particular individual; but every case of resistance is not maintained by a single individual; neither is it the aim of every insurrection to destroy a tyrant. This doctrine only serves to prevent murder, and a train of evils which would overwhelm society if it were established that any individual had a right of his own authority to kill the supreme ruler. Who will venture to accuse this doctrine of being favorable to tyranny? The liberty of the people should not be based upon the horrid right of assassination; the defence of the rights of society should not be confided to the dagger of a fanatic. The attributes of public power are so extensive and various, that their exercise must necessarily and frequently inconvenience some individuals. Man, inclined to extremes and revenge, easily enlarges upon the grievances which he suffers; passing from a particular to a general, he is inclined to look upon those who injure or oppose him as villains. At the slightest shock which he receives from government, he cries out that tyranny is insupportable; the act of arbitrary power, real or imaginary, committed against him, becomes, in his mouth, one of the many iniquities perpetrated, or the commencement of those that are to be. Grant, therefore, to the individual the right of killing a tyrant; proclaim to the people that, to render such an act lawful and meritorious, there is no need of a sentence, or any judicial condemnation; and from that time this horrible PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 337 crime will become frequent. The wisest, the justest kings will fall victims to the parricidal dagger, or the poisoned cup. You will have furnished no guarantee to the liberty of the people, and you will have exposed the dearest interests of society to dreadful hazards. The Catholic Church, by this solemn declaration, has conferred an immense service on humanity. The violent death of him who holds the supreme power seldom happens without causing bloodshed and great commotion. It provokes measures of suspicious precaution, easily converted into tyranny. It follows, then, that any crime instigated by excessive hatred of tyranny contributes to establish it in a form still more absolute and cruel. Modern nations should feel grateful to the Catholic Church for having established this sacred and saving principle. A person must be possessed of very mean sentiments, or very ferocious instincts, not to appreciate it, or to regret the bloody scenes of the Roman Empire and the barbarian monarchy. We have seen, and we still see, powerful nations delivered up to dreadful troubles, by the neglect of this Catholic maxim. The history of the last three centuries, and the experience of this, prove that this august precept of the Church was given to the people in anticipation of the dangers which were threatening them. In it we find no flattery for kings; for they are not the only ones benefited by it; it is a general proposition, including all others, whatever be their titles, who exercise supreme authority, whatever be the form of government, from the Russian autocrat to the most democratical republic. It is worthy of remark, that modern constitutions, proceeding from the bosom of revolutions, have universally rendered a solemn homage to this Catholic maxim; they have declared the person of the monarch sacred and inviolable. What does this mean, but that this person should be'placed under an impenetrable safeguard? You reproach the Catholic Church with placing a sort of shield before the person of kings, and yet you yourselves declare that person inviolable. The anointing of kings you ridicule, and yet you yourself declare that the king is sacred. Since you are forced to imitate the Church, her dogmas and her discipline must have contained an eternal truth, and high political principles; with this difference, however, that you represent as the work of the will of man what she esteems the work of the will of God. But if supreme power makes a scandalous abuse of its faculties, if it outsteps its just bounds, if it tramples under foot fundamental laws, if it persecutes religion, corrupts morality, outrages public dignity, attacks the honor of citizens, exacts illegal and disproportionate contributions, alienates national property, dismembers provinces, inflicts death and ignominy upon the people: in such cases, does Catholicity also prescribe obedience? does it forbid resistance? does it command subjects to remain tranquil, like a lamb in the claws of a wild beast? May there not exist, either in an individual, or in the principal bodies, or in the most distinguished classes of society, or in the entire mass of the nation, somewhere, in fine, the right of opposing, of resisting, after all means of mildness, representation, counsel, and entreaty have failed? In such disastrous circumstances, does the Church leave the people without hope, and tyrants without restraint? In such extremities, certain very renowned theologians think that resistance is allowable; but the dogmas of the Church do not descend to these details. The Church abstains from condemning the opposite doctrines. In such extreme circumstances, non-resistance is not a dogmatical prescription. The Church has never taught such a doctrine; if any one will maintain that she has, let him bring forward a decision of a Council or of a Sovereign Pontiff to that effect. St. Thomas of Aquin, Cardinal Bellarmin, Suarez, and other eminent theologians, were well versed in the dogmas of the Church; and yet, if you consult their works, so far from finding this doctrine in them, you will find the opposite 43.2 D 838 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. one. Now the Church has not condemned them, she has not confounded them with those seditious writers in whom Protestantism abounds, nor with modern revolutionists, who are continually disturbing social order. Bossuet and other authors of repute differ from St. Thomas, Bellarmin, Suarez; and this gives credit to the opposite opinion, but does not convert it into a dogma. Upon certain points of the highest import, the opinions of the illustrious Bishop of Meaux suffered contradiction; and we know that upon this case of an excess of tyranny, the Pope at another period was acknowledged to possess faculties which Bossuet refuses him. The Abbe de Lamennais, in his impotent and obstinate resistance to the Holy see, adduced the doctrines of St. Thomas, and those of some other theologians, pretending that to condemn his own works was to condemn schools hitherto held irreproachable. (Affaires de Rome.) The Abbe Gerbet, in his excellent refutation of M. de Lamennais, after having very judiciously remarked, that the Sovereign Pontiff's object in reproving modern doctrines was, to prevent a renewal of the errors of Wickliffe, observes, at the epoch of this heresiarch's condemnation, the doctrines of St. Thomas and of other theologians were well known, and that, nevertheless, no one believed that they were included in the condemnation. The excellent author of this refutation deemed this sufficient to deprive M. de Lamennais of the shield under which he sought to defend and cover his apostacy; and for this reason, he abstains from drawing a parallel between the two doctrines. In fact, this reflection alone is sufficient to convince any judicious man that the doctrines of St. Thomas bear no resemblance to those of M. de Lamennais. It may, however, be useful to give in few words a comparison of the two doctrines. At the present time, and in these matters, it is very proper to know, not only that these doctrines differ, but likewise wherein they differ. M. de Lamennais' theory may be stated in the following terms: A natural equality among men, and, as necessary consequences, 1. Equality of rights, political rights included; 2. The injustice of every social and political organization not establishing this equality completely, as is the case in Europe and in the whole universe; 3. Expediency and legitimacy of insurrection, to destroy governments, and change social organization; 4. Abolition of all government, as the object of the progress of the human race. The doctrines of St. Thomas on the same points may be thus expressed: A natzral equality among men; that is to say, an essential equality, but exclusive of physical, intellectual, and moral gifts-an equality among men in the eyes of God-an equality in their destination, inasmuch as they are all created to enjoy God-an equality of means, inasmuch as they are all redeemed by Christ, and may all receive His grace; but exclusive of the inequalities which it may please God to establish by gifts of grace and glory. 1. An equality of social and political rights. According to the holy doctor, such an equality is impossible. He rather supports the utility and legitimacy of certain hierarchies; the respect due to those established by law; the necessity of there being some to command and others to obey; the obligation of being.subject to the established laws of the country, whatever be the form of government; the preference for monarchical governments. 2. The injustice of every social and political oryanization not establishing a complete equality. St. Thomas looks upon this as an error opposed to reason and to faith. Nay, more; not only is it true that the inequality founded upon the very nature of man and of society is an effect and punishment of original sin, in as far as it entails upon man injury or inconvenience; but, according to the holy Doctor, this inequality would have existed among men even in a state of innocence. 3. Expediency and legitimacy of insurrection, to destroy governments, and to change the social organization. An erroneous and fatal opinion. We ought to submit to legitimate governments; PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 339 it is expedient even to tolerate such as make an improper use of their power; we must exhaust every means of entreaty, of counsel and representation, before we have recourse to others. We can only appeal to force in the greatest extremities, on rare occasions, and then only under many restrictions, as will be seen elsewhere. 4. Aholition of all government, as the object of the progress of the human'race. An absurd proposition-a dream that cannot be realized. The necessity of government in every society; arguments founded upon the nature of' man; analogies from the human body, from the very order of the universe; the existence of government even in a state of innocence. Such are the doctrines of De Lamennais and St. Thomas respectively. Let the reader compare them, and judge for himself. It is impossible to adduce the words of the holy Doctor-they would fill the volume. Should any reader wish to consult them himself, let him read, in addition to the passages inserted in this work, the whole treatise, De Regimine Principum, the commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans, and those passages of the Summa in which the holy Doctor treats of the soul, of the creation of man, of the state of innocence, of the angels and of their hierarchy, of original sin and its effects, and, above all, his valuable Treatise on Laws and that on Justice, in which he discusses the origin of the right of property and of inflicting punishments. After that he will be convinced of the truth of what I have just advanced; he will then see the injustice of M. de Lamennais in attempting to make the illustrious writers and saints venerated on our altars the accomplices of his apostacy. In grave and delicate matters confusion produces error, the enemies of truth are interested in spreading darkness, in establishing general and vague propositions susceptible of various interpretations. They seek with anxiety a text favorable to some one of the numerous interpretations that are possible,. and proudly exclaim, " How unjust it is in you to condemn us; what we maintain was asserted centuries ago, by the most respected and celebrated writers." The Abbe de Lamennais must have reckoned in a singular manner upon the credulity of his readers, to think of making them believe that there was no honest man to be found at Rome capable of informing the Pope, that in condemning the doctrines of the apostle of revolution, he was condemning also those of the angel of the schoolsand other distinguished theologians. It is possible that M. de Lamennais never read the authors except in haste and in fragments, but many persons at Rome have spent their lives in studying them. We are not ignorant of the violent declamations of Luther, Zwinglius, Knox, Jurieu, and other leaders of Protestantism, to stir up the people to revolt against princes; we are not ignorant of the gross and violent invectives made use of by these sectaries to excite the multitude. Catholics look upon such extravagances with horror. In like manner, they look with dread upon the anarchical doctrine of Rousseau, establishing that "the clauses of the social contract are so determined by the very nature of the act, that the least modification of them would render them vain and null; so that every one then resumes his former rights and regains his natural liberty. (Contrat Social, 1. i. c. 6.) The doctrine of the theologians above cited does not contain this fruitful germ of insurrection and disaster; but, on the other hand, they are not found timid and pusillanimous in the last extremities. They preach up resignation, patience, and longanimity; but there is a point at which they stop and exclaim, Enough. If they do not advocate insurrection, they do not prohibit it; it would be in vain to require them to teach as a dogmatical truth the obligation of not resisting in extreme cases. They cannot teach the people to consider as a dogma what they do not acknowledge as such. It is not their fault if the tempest bursts, if the roaring waves arise; no other hand can 340 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. control them than that of God, who rides upon the north wind and sports with the tempest. For many centuries there has been inculcated in Europe a doctrine much criticised by those who do not understand it, the intervention of the Pontifical authority between the people and their sovereigns. This doctrine was nothing less than Heaven descending as an arbiter and judge, to put an end to the disputes of the earth. The temporal power of the Popes has served as a wonderful theme to the enemies of the Church to create alarm, and declaim against Rome; but this power is no less an historical fact and a social phenomenon, which has filled with admiration the most renowned men of modern times, including some Protestants. The Scriptures make it a duty for slaves to obey their masters, even when they are oppressive and unjust. All that can be inferred from this is, that a prince, by the simple fact of his being wicked, does not lose his authority over his subjects, which' condemns beforehand the errors of those who make the right of commanding dependent upon the sanctity of its possessor. Such a principle is anarchical, and incompatible with the existence of every society. When it is once established, power remains unsafe and tottering; every disturber declares all those divested of authority whom he may deem culpable. But our question is of a different nature, and the opinion of theologians cited by us has nothing to do with this error. These theologians also on their part advocate obedience to rulers, even though they be oppressive and unjust; they also condemn insurrection, when founded on no other pretext than the vices of persons exercising supreme power; they do not admit that any abuse of power justifies resistance; but they do not consider that they impugn the sacred text by admitting that in extreme cases it is allowable to place a barrier against the excesses of a tyrant. " If governments do not lose their power by the simple fact of their being wicked, how," it will be said, " can we conceive resistance to them lawful?" This is certainly not allowable, so long as they do not outstep the bounds of their faculties; but when they do so, their commands, as St. Thomas says, are rather acts of'violence than laws. "No one has the right of judging the supreme power." This is true; but above this power exist the principles of reason, morality, religion. Power, although supreme, is bound to the execution of its promises, to keep its oaths. Society is not formed upon the model of Rousseau's ideal contract; but there exist, in certain cases, real pacts between the rulers and the people, to which both are bound to adhere. In the celebrated Catholic Proclamation to his pious Majesty Philip the Great, King of Spain and Emperor of the Indies by the Counsellors and the. Council of One Hundred of the city of Barcelona, in 1640, an epoch so profoundly religious that the Counsellors quote, as a high title of glory, the zeal of the Cataloniansfor the Catholic faith, the devotion of the Catalonians to our lady the Blessed Virgin and the most holy Sacrament;-at that time, which pride and ignorance have so often taxed with fanaticism, these counsellors said to the king, "Besides civil obligation, the customs, constitutions, and acts of the court of Catalonia are binding on conscience, and to violate them would be a mortal sin; for the prince has no right to annul a contract; it is made freely, but cannot be revoked without injustice. If a contract is.not subject to the civil law, it is subject to the law of reason; and although the prince may be the master of the laws, the contracts he makes with his vassals are inviolable, for in making them he is a mere individual, and the vassal acquires a right equal to his. A contract, in fine, should be made between equals. Hence, as the vassal cannot be unfaithful to his lord, the latter, in like manner, is bound to keep the promise he has made by solemn engagement; and indeed, the:upture of a pact ought least of all to be expected on the part of a prince. If PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 341 the word of a king is law, that word given in a solemn contract is still more binding. (Catholic Proclamation, sect. 27.) The courtiers urged the monarch to measures of coercion to reduce the Catalonians to submission; the Castilian army was preparing. to enter the principality. In this extremity, after exhausting all means of representation and entreaty, the counsellors thus expressed themselves: " Finally, men who have vowed an inveterate hatred against the Catalonians have been so successful in their continual persuasions, that the uprightness and equity of your majesty have been turned from the means of peace and tranquillity proposed by us, and which should have been admitted, were it only on the grounds of experience; and to fill up the cup of their malice, they now lay your majesty under an obligation of oppressing the principality still further, by sending an army to sack and pillage wherever the caprice of the soldier may lead him; which would place this country in a position to say (were it not for the love it has borne, still bears, and ever will bear to your majesty) that such a breach of sworn faith would leave it free, a thing of which the province is unwilling to think, and prays God to avert. Nevertheless, the principality knows from experience that these soldiers have neither respect nor pity for any thing or person, married women and innocent virgins, temples, or God Himself, images of the Saints or the sacred vessels of our churches, nay, even the blessed Sacrament has twice this year been committed to the flames by these. soldiers. The principality is, therefore, everywhere in arms to defend, in such an urgent and irremediable extremity, fortune, lfe, honor, liberty, home, laws, and above all the sacred temples, the sacred images, and the holy Sacrament of the altar (be the same for ever praised). In such a case, the holy theologians do not merely affirm that resistance is lawful, but still further, that all persons, whether lay or clerical, may take up arms to avert the evil; that both secular and ecclesiastical property may and- ought to contribute to the defence; that the nations invaded may, as the cause is universal, unite, confederate, and form juntas with a view to prevent such evils." (~ 36) Such was the language addressed to kings, at a time when religion predominated over all things. The counsellors, according to the usage of the time, took care to make marginal notes of the sources of their information; and we are not aware that their doctrines have ever been condemned as heret:cal. These doctrines cannot, without manifest dishonesty, be confounded with those of many Protestants and modern revolutionists. A cursory perusal of these writings will enable any one to discover how widely they differ. By maintaining that it is not allowable in any case, in the greatest extremities, not even when the most precious and sacred interests are at stake, to offer resistance to the civil power, the thrones of kings are thought to be strengthened; for it is generally kings that are spoken of. But it should be remembered, that this doctrine affects every other supreme power, under every form of government. Since the texts of Scripture recommending obedience " to the powers that be," do not allude to kings only, but to all supreme powers, without exception or distinction, it follows that resistance cannot in any case be offered to the president of a republic. Will it be said that the faculties of a president are determined? Are not the faculties of a king also determined? Are there not, in absolute governments, laws fixing the limits of these faculties? And is not this the distinction constantly employed by the supporters of monarchy to repel the errors of their adversaries, who confound monarchy with despotism? " But," it will be said, " the president of a republic is only temporary." And what if he were perpetual? Besides, the faculties are neither increased nor diminished by the simple fact of their having to last a long or short period. If a council, a man, a family, is invested with a certain right, by virtue of a certain law; with certain restrictions, but with certain contracts and oaths; such a council. such. a man or sucl a family is bound to adhere to the oath 342 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. taken, whatever be the extent of its duration, temporary or perpetual. Such are the principles of natural right; so certain and simple, that they cannot present any difficulty. Theologians, even those most attached to the Sovereign Pontiff, teach a doctrine which we must notice here, on account of the analogy it bears to the point under discussion. It is known that the Pope, when speaking ex cathedra, is acknowledged to be infallible, but not as a simple individual; and that, in this latter capacity, he might fall into heresy. In this case, theologians are of opinion that he would forfeit his dignity; some maintaining that he ought to be deposed, others that his deposition is the consequence of his having fallen from the faith. Whichever of these opinions be admitted, in this case resistance would become allowable, fur this reason, that the Pope would have shamefully departed from the object of his institution, would have trampled on the basis of the laws of the Church, which is her dogmas, and would consequently have nullified the promises and oaths of obedience made to him. Spedalieri, in adducing this argument, observes, that kings are certainly not of higher rank than Popes,-that power has been granted to both in etdificationem non in destructionem; adding, that if Sovereign Pontiffs authorize this doctrine with relation to themselves, temporal sovereigns cannot object to its application to them. It is strange that the monarchical zeal of Protestants and incredulous philosophers imputes to the Catholic religion as a crime, that she has allowed it to be maintained within her bosom, that, in certain cases, the subject may be released from his oath of allegiance; whilst other philosophers of the same school reproach it with having sanctioned despotism by its detestable doctrine of non-resistance, as Dr. Beatty expresses it. The direct, indirect, and declaratory powers of the Popes have served as an admirable bugbear to intimidate kings; the dangerous principles of theological works formed an excellent pretext for raising the cry of alarm, for representing Catholicity as a nest of seditious maxims. The hour of revolutions was struck,-circumstances were changed,-fresh necessities arose, and men adapted their language to the times. The Catholics, a short time before seditious and regicidal, were then declared abettors of despotism, fulsome adulators of civil power. Recently, the Jesuits, leagued with the infernal policy of Rome, were everywhere undermining thrones, to establish on their ruins the universal monarchy of the Pope; but the secret of this horrid plot was discovered, and fortunately so, for the world was otherwise about to experience a frightful catastrophe. But now that the Jesuits are expelled, and are expiating their crimes in exile, the French Revolution, the prelude to so many others, breaks out, and the aspect of affairs changes immediately. Protestants and unbelievers, the supporters of ancient discipline, the zealous adversaries of the abuses of the Court of Rome, fully comprehending the new situation of affairs, hasten to conform to it. From that moment, the Jesuits, the Catholics, the Pope, are no longer seditious or tyrannicides, but Machiavelian supporters of tyranny, enemies of the liberty of the people; and just as a league had been supposed to exist between the Jesuits and the Pope for the foundation of a universal theocracy, there is now discovered, thanks to the investigations of these eminent philosophers and strict, incorruptible Christians, an infamous pact between the Pope and kings to oppress, enslave, and degrade the unfortunate human race. The answer to this enigma may be thus briefly expressed. So long as kings maintain their power and the peaceable possession of their thrones, so long as Providence restrains the tempest, and the monarch, raising his proud head towards heaven, commands the people with a lofty air, the Catholic Church does not flatter him. "Thou art dust," she says to him, " and into dust thou shalt return; power was given thee not unto destruction, but unto edification; PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 843 thy faculties are great, but not boundless.. God is thy judge, as wel as that of the lowest of thy subjects." The Church is then accused of insolence; and if any theologian should venture to investigate the origin of civil power, to voint out, with generous freedom, the duties to which this poorer is subject; to write, in a word, with prudence upon public right, but without servility, tie Catholics are then declared seditious. But the tempest bursts, thrones are overturned, revolution prevails, spills the blood of the people in torrents, cuts off royal heads, and all in the name of liberty. The Church says: "This is no liberty, but a succession of crimes; the fraternity and equality which I have taught, were never your orgies and guillotines." The Church then becomes a vie flatterer; her words, her actions, have indubitably revealed that the Sovereign Pontiff is the surest anchor of despotism; it has been proved that the Court of Rome has been polluted by an infamous pact. (33) CHAPTER LVI1. POLITICAL SOCIELTY IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. WE have already seen what has been the conduct of the Christian religion with respect to society; that is to say, that not caring whether such or such political forms were established in a country, she has ever addressed herself to man, seeking to enlighten his understanding and to purify his heart, fully confident that when these objects were attained, society would naturally pursue a safe course. This is sufficient to obliterate the reproach imputed to her of being an enemy to the liberty of the people. Protestantiom has certainly never revealed to the world a single dogma which exalts the dignity of man, nor created fresh motives of consideration and repject, or closer bonds of fraternity. The Reformation cannot, therefore, boast of having given the least impetus to the progress of modern nations; it cannot, consequently, lay the least claim to the gratitude of the people in this respect. But as it frequently happens that people lay aside main points and set a great value on appearances; and as Protestantism has been supposed to accord much better than Catholicity with those institutions in which it is usual to find guarantees for a high degree of liberty; we must draw a parallel. Besides, we cannot omit it without betraying an ignorance of the genius of this age, and authorizing the suspicion that Catholicity cannot derive any advantage from such a comparison. In the first place, I will observe, that those who look upon Protestantism as inseparable from public liberty do not in this respect agree with M. Guizot, who cannot certainly be accused of any want of sympathy for the Reformation. " In Germany," says this celebrated publicist, " far from demanding political liberty, it has accepted, I should not like to say political servitude, but the absence of liberty." (Hist. Gen. de la Civil en Eur. leg. 12.) I quote M. Guizot, because in Spain we are so accustomed to translations, because we Spaniards have been led to suppose, that the best thing for us is to believe foreigners on their bare word; because amongst us, in questions of importance, it is necessary to have recourse to foreign authorities;'and hence, a writer who appears to slight such authorities, exposes himself to the risk of being treated as an ignoramus, as one behind the age. Besides, with a certain class of writers, the authority of M. Guizot is decisive. In fact, a multitude of publications have appeared amongst us bearing the title of " Philosophy of History," whose authors it is quite clear, have used the works of that French writer as their text-books, Is this assertion, that Protestantism is the natural bulwark of liberty, true or false, accurate or inaccurate? What do history and 344 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. philosophy teach us on this point? Has Protestantism advanced the popular cause, by contributing to the establishment and development of liberal forms of government? To place the question in its true light, and discuss it tholoughly, we must take a view of the state of Europe at the close of the fifteenth century, and at the beginning of the sixteenth. It is incontestable that individuals and society were then making rapid progress towards perfection. We have sufficient evidence of this fact in the wonderful march of intellect at this period, in the numerous measures of improvement effected at that epoch, and in the better organization everywhere introduced. This organization is doubtless still imperfect; but it is nevertheless such as cannot be likened to that of former times. If we carefully examine into the state of society at that epoch, as represented either in the writings or in the events of the time, we shall observe a certain restlessness, anxiety, and fermentation, which, while they indicated the existence of vast wants not yet satisfied, were evidence also of a tolerably distinct knowledge of those wants. Far from discovering in the men of that period a contempt or forgetfulness of their rights and dignity, or any discouragement and pusillanimity at the sight of obstacles, we find them abounding in foresight and ingenuity, swayed by lofty and sublime thoughts, fired with noble sentiments, and animated with intrepid and ardent courage. The progress of European society at that epoch was very rapid; three very remarkable circumstances contributed to render it so: 1. The introduction of the whole body of men to the rank of citizens, as a necessary consequence of the abolition of slavery and the decline of feudality; 2. The very nature of civilization, in which every thing advances together and abreast; 3. In fine, the existence of a means for increasing its development and rapidity-this means was the art of printing. To make use of a physico-mathematical expression, we may say, that the amount of motion must have been very considerable, since it was the product of the mass by the rapidity, and that the mass, as well as the rapidity, were then very considerable. This powerful movement, which proceeds from good, is in itself good, and is productive of good, is, however, accompanied by inconveniences and perils; it raises flattering hopes, but it also inspires apprehensions and fears. The people of Europe are an ancient people, but they may be said to have become young again; their inclinations, their wants, urge them to great enterprises; and they enter upon them with the ardor of an impetuous and inexperienced young man, feeling il his breast a great heart, and in his head the lively spark of genius. In this situation, a great problem presents itself for solution, viz., to find the most proper means for directing society without impeding its progress; and for conducting it by a way free from precipices to the objects of its aim, intelligence, morality, felicity. A slight glance at this problem startles us at its immense extent; so numerous are the objects it embraces, the relations it bears, the obstacles and difficulties with which it is beset. Considering this question attentively, and comparing it with man's weakness, the mind is ready to lose courage and despond. The problem, however, exists, not as a scientific speculation, but as a real and urgent necessity. In such a case, society is like individuals; it attempts, essays, and makes efforts to get clear of the difficulty as well as possible. Man's civil state improves daily; but to maintain this improvement, and to perfect it, requires a means: and this is the problem of political forms. What ought these forms to be? And, above all, what elements can we make use of? What is the respective force of these elements? What are their tendencies, their relations, their affinities? How shall they be combined? Monarchly, Aristocracy, Democrac —these three powers present themselves at the same time to dispute for the direction and government of society. They are certainly not equal, either in force, means of action, or in practical intelligence; but PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 845 they all command our respect, they have all pretensions to a preponderance more or less decisive, and none of them are without the probability of obtaining it. This simuItaneons concurrrence of pretensions, this rivalship of three powers so different in their nature and aim, forms one of the leading features of this epoch. It is, as it were, in a great measure the key to the principal events; and, in spite of the various aspects presented by this feature, it may be signalized as a general fact among all the civilized portion of the nations of Europe. Before proceeding further in our examination of this subject, the mere indication of such a fact suggests the reflection, that it must be very incorrect to say that Catholicity has tendencies opposed to the true liberty of the people; for we see that European civilization, which, during so many ages, was under the influence and guardianship of this religion, did not then present one single principle of government exclusively predominating. Survey the whole of Europe at this period, and you will not find one country in which the same fact did not exist. In Spain, France, England, Germany, under the names of Cortes, States-General, Parliaments, or Diets; the same thing everywhere, with the simple modifications which necessarily result from circumstances adapted to each people. What is very remarkable in this case is, that if there be a single exception, it is in favor of liberty; and, strange to say, it exists precisely in Italy, where the influence of the Popes is immediately felt. The names of the Republics of Genoa, Pisa, Sienna, Florence, Venice, are familiar to all. It is well known that Italy is the country in which popular forms at that period gained most ground, and in which they were put in practice, whilst in other countries they had already abandoned the field. I do not mean to say that the Italian Republics were a model worthy of being imitated by the other nations of Europe. I am well aware that these forms of government were attended with grave inconveniences; but since so much is said of.pirgit and tendencies, since the Catholic Church is reproached with her affinity to despotism, and the Popes with a taste for oppression, it is well to adduce those facts which may serve to throw some doubt upon certain authoritative assertions, adduced as so many philosophico-historical dogmas. If Italy preserved her independence in spite of the efforts of the Emperors of Germany to wrest it from her, she owed it in a great part to the firmness and energy of the Popes. In order to comprehend fully the relations which Catholicity bears to political institutions, in order to ascertain what degree of affinity it bears to such and such forms, and to form a correct idea of the influence of Protestantism in this respect over European civilization, we must examine carefully and in detail each of the elements claiming preponderance. When we examine them afterwards in their relations with each other, we will ascertain, as far as possible, where the truth lies in this shapeless mass. Every one of these three may be considered in two ways: 1. According to the ideas formed of them at the period we are speaking of; 2. According to the interests these elements represent, and the part they play in society. We must lay particular stress upon this distinction, without which we should expose ourselves to the commission of serious errors. In fact, the ideas which were entertained upon such or such principles of government did not coincide with the interest represented by this same element, atd with the part it acted in society; and although it is clear that these two things must have had very close relations with each other, and could not be disengaged from a real and reciprocal influence, yet it is most certain that they differ considerably, and that this difference, the source of very various considerations, shows the subject in points of view quite dissimilar. 44 846 CHAPTER LVIII. MONARCHY IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. THE idea of monarchy has ever existed in the bosom of European society, even at the time when the least use was made of it; and it is worthy of remark, that at the time when its energy was taken away, and it was destroyed in practice, it still retained its force in theory. We cannot say that our ancestors Lhtd any very fixed notions upon the nature of the object represented by this idea; nor can we wonder at it, since the continual variations and modifications which they witnessed must have prevented them from forming any very correct knowledge of it. Nevertheless, if we peruse the codes in places where monarchy is treated of, and if we consult the writings which have been preserved upon this matter, we shall find that their ideas on this point were more fixed than might have been imagined. By studying the manner of thinking of this period, we find that men in general were almost destitute of analytical knowledge, being more erudite than philosophical; so much so, that they scarcely ventured to express an idea without supporting it by a multitude of authorities. This taste for erudition, which is visible at the first glance into their writings-a mere' tissue of quotations-and which must have been very natural, since it was so general and lasting, had very advantageous results; not the least of which was the uniting of ancient with modern society, by the preservation of a great number of records and memorials, which, had it not been for this public taste, must have been destroyed, and by exhuming from the dust the remains of antiquity about to perish. But, on the other hand, it produced many evils; amongst others, a sort of stifling of thought, whic'i could no longer indulge in its own inspirations, although they may have been more happy than the ancient ones on some points. However it may be, such is the fact: on examining it in relation to the matter under discussion, we find that monarchy was represented at that time as one single picture, in which there appeared at the same time the kings of ihe Jews and the Roman emperors, whose features had been corrected by the hand of Christianity. That is to say, the principles of monarchy were composed of the teachings of Scripture and the Roman codes. Seek every where the idea of emperor, king, or prince, you will always find the same thing, whether you look for the origin of power, its extent, its exercise, or its object. But what ideas were entertained of monarchy? What was the acceptation of this word? Taken in a general sense, abstractedly from the various modifications which a variety of circumstances gave to its signification, it meant, the supreme command over society, vested in the hands of one man, who was to exercise it according to reason and justice. This was the leading idea, the only one fixed, as a sort of pole, round which all other questions revolved. IDid the monarch possess in himself the faculty of making' laws without consulting general assemblies, which, under different names, represented the different classes of the kingdom? From the moment that we propose this question we come upon new ground. We have descended from theory to practice; we have brought our ideas into contact with the object to which they are to be applied. From that moment, we must allow, every thing vacillates and becomes obscure; a thousand incoherent, strange, and contradictory facts pass before our eyes: the parchments upon which are inscribed the rights, liberties, and laws of the people give rise to a variety of interpretations, which multiply doubts and increase difficulties. We see, in the first place, that the relations of the monarch with the subject, or, more properly speaking, the mode in which government should be exercised, was not very well defined. The confusion PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 347 from which society was emerging was still felt, and was inevitable in an aggregation of heterogeneous bodies, in a combifiation of rival and hostile elements; that is, we discover an embryo, and consequently it is impossible as yet to find regular and well-defined forms. Did this idea of monarchy contain any thing of despotism, any thing that subjected one man to the dominion of another by setting aside the eternal laws of reason and justice? No; from the moment that we touch upon this point we discover a new horizon, clear and transparent, upon which objects present themselves distinctly, without a shade of dimness or obscurity. The answer of all writers is decisive: Rule ought tp be conformable to reason and justice; if it is not, it is mere tyranny. So that the principle maintained by M. Guizot, in his Discours sur la Democratie moderne, and in his History of Civilisation in Europe, viz. that the will alone does not constitute a right; that laws, to be laws, should accord with those of eternal reason, the only source of all legitimate power;-that this principle, I say, which we might imagine to be newly applied to society, is as ancient as the world. Acknowledged by ancient philosophers, developed, inculcated, and applied by Christianity, we find it in every page of jurists and theologians. But we know what this principle was worth in the monarchies of antiquity, and also in our own days in countries where Christianity has not yet been established. Who, in such countries, presumes continually to remind kings of their obligation to be just? Observe, on the contrary, what is the case among Christians: the words'reason' and'justice' are constantly in the mouth of the subject, because he knows that no one has a right to treat him unreasonably or unjustly; and this he knows, because Christianity has impressed him with a profound idea of his own dignity, because it has accustomed him to look upon reason'and justice, not as vain words, but as eternal characters engraven on the heart of man by the hand of God, perpetually reminding man that, although he is a frail creature, subject to error and to weakness, he is, nevertheless, stamped with the image of eternal truth and of immutable justice. If any one should question the truth of what I have advanced, it will suffice, to convince him, to remind him of the numerous texts previously cited in this work, and in which the most eminent Catholic writers bear testimony to their manner of thinking on the origin and faculties of civil power. So much for ideas; as for facts, they vary according to times and countries. During the incursions of the barbarians, and so long as the feudal system prevailed, monarchy remained much beneath its typical idea; but during the course of the sixteenth century, matters assumed a different aspect. In Germany, France, England, and Spain, powerful monarchs were reigning, who filled the world with the fame of their names; in their presence aristocracy and democracy bowed with humility; or if by chance they ventured to raise their heads, it was only to suffer still greater degradation. The throne, it is true, had not yet attained that ascendency of power and importance which it acquired in the following century; but its destiny was irrevocably fixed-power and glory awaited it. Aristocracy and democracy might have labored to take part in future events; but it would have been labor in vain for them to attempt to appropriate them. A fixed and powerful centre was essential to European society, and monarchy completely satisfied this imperative necessity. The people understood and felt it; hence we find them eagerly grasping at this saving principle, and placing themselves under the safeguard of the throne. The question is not, therefore, whether or not the throne ought to exist, or whether it ought to preponderate over aristocracy and democracy: these two questions have been already resolved. At the commencement of the sixteenth century, its existence and preponderance were already necessary. The question to be resolved is, whether the throne ought so decisively to have prevailed, :348 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. that the two elements, aristocracy and democracy, should be erased from the political world; whether the combination which had hitherto existed was still to exist: or, whether these two elements should disappear; whether. monarchical power should be absolute. The Church resisted royal power when it attempted to lay hands upon sacred things; but her zeal never carried her so far as to depreciate, in the eys of the people, an authority which was so essential to them. On the contrary, besides continually giving to the power of kings a more solid basis, by her doctrines favorable to all legitimate authority, she endeavored to give them a still more sacred character by the august ceremonies displayed at their coronations. The Church has been sometimes accused of anarchical tendencies, for having energetically struggled against the pretensions of sovereigns; by some,.on the contrary, she has been reproached with favoring despotism, because she preached up to the people the duty of obedience to the lauful authorities. If I mistake not, these accusations, so opposite to each other, prove that the Church has neither been adulatory nor anarchical; she has maintained the balance even, by telling the truth both to. kings and their subjects. Let the spirit of sectarianism seek, on all sides, historical facts, to prove that the Popes have attempted to destroy civil monarchy by confiscating it to their own profit. But let us bear in mind what the Protestant Miiller says, that the Father of the faithful was, during the barbarous ages, a tutor sent by God to the European nations; and let us not be astonished to find that differences have sometimes occurred between him and his pupils. To discover the intention which dictated these reproaches against the Court of Rome, relative to monarchy, we need only reflect upon the following question. All writers consider as a great benefit the creation of a strong central authority, and yet circumscribed within just limits that it may not abuse its power; they laud to the skies every thing tending, directly or indirectly, among all the nations of Europe, to establish such an authority. Why, then, when speaking of the conduct of Popes, do they attribute to a pretended taste for despotism the support which they give to royal authority, whilst they qualify with anarchical usurpation their efforts to restrain, upon certain points, the faculties of sovereigns? The answer is not difficult. (34) CHAPTER LIX. THE ARISTOCRACY OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. THE aristocracy, as including the privileged portion of society, comprehended two classes very distinct in their origin and nature, the nobility and the clergy. Both abounded in power and riches; both were placed far above the people, and were important wheels in the political machine. There was, however, this remarkable difference between them, that the principal basis of the power and grandeur of the Clergy was religious ideas-ideas which circulated throughout society, which animated it, gave it life, and consequently insured for a long time the preponderance of the ecclesiastical power; whilst the grandeur and influence of the nobles rested solely upon a fact necessarily transient, viz. the social organization of the epoch-an organization which was becoming rapidly modified, since the people were then struggling to liberate themselves from the bonds of feudalism. I do not mean, that the nobles did not possess legitimate rights to the power and influence which they exercised; but merely that the principal portion of these rights, even supposing them founded upon the most just laws and titles, was not necessarily connected with any of the great conServative principles of society-those principles which invest with an immense PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 349 force and ascendency the person or class which in any way represents them. But we touch here upon a subject little investigated, and upon the explanation of which depends the comprehension of great social facts. It is well, therefore, to develope it fully, and to examine it attentively. Of what was monarchy the representative? Of a principle eminently conservative of society-a principle which has withstood all the attacks of theories and revolutions, and to which have been attached, as the only anchor of safety, those very nations in the bosom of which democratical ideas were diffused, and in which liberal institutions originated. This is one of the causes why monarchy, even in its most calamitous times, triumphed over its disasters. Feudal pride, and the unsettled state of the times, with the agitation of rising democracy, united to oppress it; scarcely was its power distinguishable amid the troubled waves of society, like the broken mast of a shipwrecked vessel. But, even at this time, we find the ideas of force and power bound to those of monarchy. Regal dignity was trampled under foot and outraged in various ways, but still held sacred and recognised as inviolable. Theory was not in accordance with practice; the idea was more forcible than the fact which it expressed: but we need not be astonished at this phenomenon, since such is always the character of ideas producing great changes. They are, at first, merely visible in society; they spread, take root, and penetrate into all institutions; time continues to prepare the way; and if the idea is just and moral, if it point to the satisfaction of a want, the moment at length.comes in which facts give way, the idea triumphs, and bends and humbles all before it. This was the case, in the sixteenth century, with regard to monarchy; under one form or another, with greater or less modifications, it was actually essential to the people, as it is still; and for this reason it naturally prevailed over all its adversaries, and survived all accidents. With respect to the clergy, we need not attempt to show that they were the representatives of the religious principle-a real social necessity for all the) nations of the earth, when taken in its general sense; and a real social neces. sity for the nations of Europe, when taken in its Christian sense. We have already seen that the nobility could not be compared either to monarchy or to the clergy, since they were destitute of the high principles represented by each of these bodies. Extensive privileges, and the ancient possession of great estates, with the guarantee of the laws and customs of the time; glorious traditions of military feats, pompous names, titles, and escutcheons of illustrious ancestors; such were the insignia of the lay aristocracy. But nothing of all this had any direct and essential relation with the great wants of society. The nobility depended upon a particular organization, necessarily transient; they were too nearly allied to a law purely positive and human, to be able to reckon upon a long duration, or to flatter themselves with success in all their pretensions and exigencies. It will be objected, perhaps, that the existence of an intermediate class between the monarch and the people is an essential necessity, acknowledged by all publicists, and founded upon the very nature of things. In fact, we have seen that in nations from which the ancient aristocracy has disappeared, a new one has been formed, either by the course of events or by the action of governments. But this objection is not applicable to the question in the point of view under which I consider it. I do not deny the necessity of an intermediate class; I merely affirm that the ancient nobility, such as it was, did not contain elements to ensure its duration, since it was liable to be replaced by another, as it has been in effect. The classes of the laity acquire their political and social importance from a superiority of intellect and force; this superiority no longer existing in the nobility, its fall w.as inevitable. At the beginning of the sixteenth century the throne and the people daily acquired a greater ascendency; the former became the centre of 2E 350 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. all social forces, and the people were constantly enriching themselves by industry and commerce. With regard to learning, the discovery of printing, as it became general, prevented it from being henceforth the exclusive patrimony of any particular class. It was evident, therefore, that the nobility perceived, at this epoch, their ancient power escaping, and possessed no other means of preserving a part of it than to struggle to preserve the titles which it had given them. Unfortunately for them, their wealth was daily decreasing, not only from the dilapidations occasioned by luxury, but also from the extraordinary increase of non-territorial riches; the profound changes wrought in the value of every thing by means of the re-organization of society and the discovery of America caused immovable property to lose much of its importance. If the force of landed property was gradually diminishing, the rights of jurisdiction were marching still more rapidly towards their ruin. On one hand, these rights were opposed by the power of kings; and, on the other, by municipalities and other centres of action possessed by the popular element; so that, in spite of the most profound respect for acquired rights, and merely by allowing, things to take their ordinary course, the ancient nobility was inevitably sunk to that point of depression in which it now exists. This could not happen to the clergy. Despoiled of their wealth, entirely or partially deprived of their privileges, there still remained for them the. ministry of religion. No one could exercise this ministry without them; which was sufficient to insure them great influence in spite of all commotions and changes. CHAPTER LX. ON DEMOCRACY. SUCH was the situation of Europe during the centuries preceding the sixteenth, that it appears difficult to find for democracy a well-defined place in political theories. Stifled by the established powers, deprived as yet of the resources which, in time, gave it the ascendency, it was natural it should be almost unobserved by politicians. It was in reality very feeble; and it was not, therefore, surprising that, owing to the influence of reality over ideas, theorists should regard the people merely as an abject portion of society, unworthy of honors or happiness, and fit only to labor and to serve. It is, however, worthy of remark, that ideas from that time took a new direction; it may even be affirmed that they were infinitely more elevated and more generous than facts. This is one of the most convincing proofs of the intellectual development that Christianity had operated amongst men-one of the most unexceptionable testimonies in favor of that profound sentiment of reason and justice which it had deposited in the heart of society. Now these elements were not to be stifled by events the most unfavorable, nor by the rudest shocks; for they were supported upon the very dogmas of religion, which still remain firm, in spite of all commotion, as an immovable axis remains fixed in the midst of broken machinery. In perusing the writings of this epoch, we find established, as an indubitable fact, the right of the people to the administration of justice; they were not to be irritated by any vexatious regulations; the public imposts were to be equally divided; no one was to be forced to do any thing contrary to reason or the well-being of society: that is to say, these writers acknowledged and established all those principles upon which were to be based the laws and customs destined one day to produce civil liberty. This is so true, that, in proportion as circumstanaes permitted, these principles were rapidly and extensively developed; PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY, 351 tast and numerous applications were imnmediately made of them; and civil liberty took such deep root among the people of modern Europe, that it has never been erased from their bosoms; and we see it preserved in forms of absolute government as well as in the mixed forms. To complete my demonstration, that the ideas in favor of the people proceeded from Christianity, I will adduce a reason which appears to me decisive. The philosophy adopted by the schools of that period was that of Aristotle. Aristotle's authority was of great weight; he was called by an autononasia, the Philosopher; a good commentary of his works was considered the highest point to be attained in these matters. And yet, so far as the relations of society were concerned, the doctrines of the Stagyrite were not adopted; Christian writers took a higher and more generous view of mankind. Aristotle's degrading doctrines upon man born to servitude, destined to this end even by nature, anterior to all legislation; his horrible doctrines upon infanticide; his theories, which at one blow deprived all those who professed the mechanical arts of the title of citizen; in a word, those monstrous systems, which the ancient philosophers unconsciously learned from the society which surrounded them, were utterly rejected by Christian philosophers. The man who had just perused Aristotle's work on Politics took up his Bible, or the works of the Fathers: the authority of Aristotle was great, but that of the Church was still greater; the works of the pagan philosopher must be interpreted piously, or abandoned; in either case the rights of humanity were saved, and this was an effect of the preponderating force of the Catholic faith. The system of castes most forcibly contributes to arrest the development of the popular element, by condemning the majority of the people of a country to a state of perpetual abjection and slavery. In this system, honors, riches, and command are confined and transferred from father to son; a barrier separates men from each other, and ends in causing the most powerful to be con. sidered as'belonging to a superior class of beings. The Church has ever opposed the introduction of so fatal a system, and to apply the word caste to the clergy would betray an ignorance of its meaning. On this subject M. Guizot has done ample justice to the cause of truth. He expresses himself in the following manner in the fifth lecture of his Histoire yenrrale de la Civilisation en Europe: "With regard to the mode of formation and transmission of power in the Church, there is a word," says he, " much used in speaking of the Christian clergy, and which I am under the obligation of discarding; it is the word caste. The body of ecclesiastical magistrates has often been called a caste. This expression is not correct; the idea of heirship is inherent in that of caste. Travel over the world; take all those countries in which the system of castes exists, in India, in Egypt, you will find everywhere the caste essentially hereditary; it is the transmission of the same situation, of the same power, from father to son. Where heirship does not exist, there is no caste, there is a corporation; the spirit of corporate bodies has its inconveniences, but it is very different from that of castes. The word caste cannot be applied to the Christian Church. The celibacy of the clergy has prevented them from becoming a caste. You perceive already the consequences of this difference. A system of caste, and the existence of hereditary succession, inevitably involve the idea of privileges. The very definition of a caste implies privileges. When the same functions, the same powers, become hereditary in the same families, it is evident that privileges follow, and that no one can acquire such functions and powers unless he is born to them. This, in fact, is what has taken place: wherever religious government has fallen into the hands of a caste, it has become a privilege; no one has been permitted to enter it but the members of families belonging to the caste. Nothing of this has ever occurred in the Christian Church; on the contrary, she has ever maintained the equal admissi 852 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. bility of all men, whatever their origin, to all her functions, to all her dignities The ecclesiastical state, particularly from the fifth to the twelfth century, was open to all. The Church was recruited from all ranks, from the inferior as well as from the superior,-more commonly even from the inferior. She alone resisted the system of castes; she alone maintained the principle of equality of competition; she alone called all legitimate superiors to the possession of power. This is the first grand result naturally produced by the fact that she was a corporation, and not a caste." This splendid passage of the French writer completely vindicates the Catholic Church from the reproach of exclusiveness with which it had been attempted to stain her; it presents to me also the opportunity of making some reflections upon the beneficial effects of Catholicity upon the development of civilization in favor of the plebeian classes. We are not ignorant of the numerous declamations against religious celibacy which have proceeded from the mouths of the pretended defenders of the rights of humanity; but is it not strange that they forget, as M. Guizot justly observes, that celibacy is exactly what has prevented the Christian clergy from becoming a caste? Let us examine, in fact, what would have been the case on the. contrary supposition. At the time to which we refer, the ascendency of religious power was unlimited, and the wealth of the Church considerable; that is to say, she possessed every thing necessary for enabling a caste to establish its preponderance and stability. What further was needful, therefore? Hereditary succession, nothing more; and this would have been established by the marriage of the clergy. What I here affirm is no vain conjecture, it is a positive fact, which I can render evident by bringing forward historical proof. From certain remarkable regulations in ecclesiastical legislation, we learn that it required all the energy of pontifical authority to prevent this succession from being introduced. Every thing, in fine, tended to such an end; and if the Church preserved itself from'such a calamity, it was owing to the horror which she always entertained of this fatal custom. Read the 17th chapter of the first book of the Decretals of Gregory IX.; the pontifical regulations therein contained prove,that the evil here spoken of presented alarming symptoms. The pope makes use of the strongest terms possible to be found: "Ad enormitatem istam eradicandam," " observato Apostolici rescripti decreto quod successionem in Ecclesia Dei liereditariam detestatur." Ad extirpandas successiones a sanctis Dei Ecclesiis studio totius sollicitudinis debemus intendere." "Quia igitur in Ecclesia successiones, et in prelaturis et dignitatibus ecclesiasticis statnttis canonicis damnantur." These expressions, and others of a like nature, clearly show that the danger was already considered serious, and justify the prudence of the Holy See in reserving to itself the exclusive right of granting dispensations on this point. It required the continual vigilance. of the pontifical authority to prevent this abuse from making daily progress, for it was urged on by the most powerful feelings of nature. Four centuries had elapsed since these measures had been taken, and yet we find that, in 1533, Pope Clement VII. was obliged to restrict a canon of Alexander III. in order to prevent grave scandals, grievously lamented by the pious Pontiff. Suppose that the Church had not opposed such an abuse with all her force, and that the custom had become general; bear in mind also> that in those ages of the grossest ignorance, the privileged classes were every thing, and the people had scarcely a civil existence; and see whether there would not have been formed an ecclesiastical caste along with that of the nobility, and whether both, united by the bonds of family and common interest, would not have opposed an invincible obstacle to the ulterior development of the plebeian class, plunging European society into that degradation in which Asiatic society now exists. Such would have been the consequence of the marriage of the clergy, if the pretended reform had been realized a few PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 353 centuries sooner. When it came, at the beginning of the sixteenth century, it. found European society in a great measure formed; it had to contend against,in adult, who could not easily be made to forget his ideas and change his habits. What has actually taken place may lead us to infer what would have taken place. In England, a close alliance was formed between the lay aristocracy and the Protestant clergy; and what is very remarkable, we have seen, and we still see, in that country, something resembling iastes, with the modifications which must necessarily ensue from the great development of a certain kind of civilization and liberty at which Great Britain has arrived. If the clergy in the middle age, establishing their perpetuity by hereditary succession, had constituted themselves an exclusive class, would not the aristocratic alliance of which we are speaking have been a natural consequence? And who would thenceforth have been able to break this alliance? The enemies of the Church interpret all her discipline, and even some of her dogmas, by imputing to her ulterior designs;, and hence they consider the law of celibacy as the result of an interested design. It was easy to see, however, that if the Church had entertained worldly views, she might have selected as a model those priests of other religions who have formed a. separate, preponderating, and exclusive class, for which the severity of duty did not form a brazen wall against the enjoyments of nature. Europe, it will b3 objected, is not Asia. This is true; but the Europe of our days, and even that of the sixteenth century, is no longer the Europe of the middle ages. In those centuries, in which none but the clergy could read and write, and in which knowledge was exclusively in their possession, had they wished to plunge the world into darkness, they had only to extinguish the torch with which they were enlightening it. It is also very certain, that celibacy has given to the clergy a moral force and ascendency which they could not have attained by any other means. But Slis only proves that the Church has -preferred moral to physical power, and lhat the spirit of her institutions is to act by exercising a direct influence upon the intelligence and heart of man. Now, is it not eminently praiseworthy to use all possible moral means for the direction of mankind? Is it not an honor to the Catholic clergy to have accomplished, by institutions severe against themselves, what they might have realized in part by systems indulgent to their own passions and degrading to others? Oh, we see here the work of Him who will remain with His Church till the end of the world. Whatever may be the value of these reflections, it cannot be contested, that where Christianity has not existed, the people have been the victims of a small number, whose contempt and insults have been the only recompense of their labors. Consult history and experience; the fact is general and constant; there is not an exception even in those ancient republics so vaunted for their liberty. Under liberal forms, slavery existed; a slavery properly so called for some men; a slavery glossed over with fine appearances for that turbulent multitude who served the caprice of the Tribunes, and believed they were exercising their sublime rights by condemning to ostracism or to death the most virtuous citizens. It has sometimes happened that, among the Christians, appearances were not in favor of liberty, but things were so in reality, if we understand by the word liberty the empire of just laws, aiming at the wellbeing of the multitude, and founded upon the consideration and profound respect due to the rights of mankind. Observe the grand phases of European society at the time when Catholicity exclusively predominated. With various forms, distinct origins, different inclinations, they all follow the same course; all tend to favor the cause of the multitude; whatever has this for its aim, endures; whatever has not, perishes. Whence comes it that this was not the case in other countries'' If evident reasons and palpable facts, moreover, did not manifest the salutary influence of the religion of Jesus Christ, so remarkable 4 2, 22 354 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITI CATHOLICITY. a coincidence would suffice to suggest grave reflections to those, who meditate upon the cause and character of the events which change or modify the destiny of mankind. Let those who represent Catholicity as the enemy of the people, point out to us a single doctrine of the Church sanctioning the abuses under which the people were suffering, or the injustice which oppressed them. Let them show us whether, at the commencement of the sixteenth century, when Europe was under the exclusive domination of the Catholic religion, the people were not as far advanced as they could be, considering the ordinary course of things. They certainly did not possess so much wealth as they have since acquired, and their knowledge was not so extensive as in modern times; but is the progress which has been made in this respect attributable to Protestantism? Was not the sixteenth century commenced under more favorable auspices than the fifteenth, and the latter under better auspices than the fourteenth? This proves that Europe, under the shield of Catholicity, continued in a progressive march; that the cause of the multitude suffered no prejudice from the influence of Catholicity; and that if great ameliorations have since been effected, they have not been a consequence of what is called the Reformation. It is the development of industry and commerce that has most powerfully contributed to elevate modern democracy, by diminishing the preponderance of the aristocratic classes. I do not touch upon the events which took place in Europe before the appearance of Protestantism; but I see at a glance that, far from impeding such a movement, Catholic doctrines and institutions must have favored it, since, under their shield and. protection, the manufacturing and mercantile interests were surprisingly developed. No one is ignorant of their astonishing success in Spain: and we cannot attribute this progress to the Moors; for Catalonia, subject exclusively to the Catholic influence, evinced such activity, prosperity, and intelligence in industry and commerce, that we could scarcely believe to what a state of perfection they had arrived, did not unexceptionable documents bear ample testimony to the fact. Read the Historical Memoirs of the Marine, Commerce, and Arts of the ancient City of Barcelona, by our celebrated Capmany. May we not account it an honor to belong to this Catalonian nation, whose ancestors displayed such zeal in all things, never allowing other nations to surpass them in the march of civilization and improvement? Whilst this phenomenon was advancing in the south of Europe, the association of the Hanseatic towns, the origin of which is lost in the centuries of the middle ages, was created in the north. It obtained in time such an amount of power as to measure its force with that of kings. Its rich factories, established all over Europe, and favored with many advantageous privileges, elevated it to the rank of a real power. Not satisfied with the power which it enjoyed in its own country, and in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, it extended it to England and Russia. London and Novogorod admired the splendid establishments of those intrepid merchants, who, by means of their wealth, obtained exorbitant privileges; who had their own magistrates, and formed an independent state in the centre of foreign countries. It is very remarkable that the Hanseatic league selected religious communities as their model, in all that concerned the system of life of the clerks in their counting-houses. Their clerks ate in common, had common dormitories, and none of them were allowed to marry. Any one of them transgressing this law, forfeited his rights to remain a member or a citizen of the Hanseatic Confederation. In France, the manufacturing classes were also organized, the better to resist the elements of dissolution existing in their bosom; and this change, so fruitful in results, is entirely due to a king venerated upon tie altars of the Catholic Church. The Establishment for the Trades of Paris gave a powerful impetus to the industrial classes, by augmenting their intelligence PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY, 855 and improving their morals; and whatever were the abuses that crept into that organization, it cannot be denied that St. Louis satisfactorily supplied a great want, by organizing the trades in the best manner possible, considering how little progress had at that time been made. What shall we say of Italy, containing within its bosom the powerful republics of Venice, Florence, Genoa, and Pisa? It is difficult to conceive what progress industry had made in this peninsula, and, as a natural consequence, what a development the democratical element received. Had the influence in itself been so oppressive, had the breath of the Roman court been fatal to the progress of the people, is it not evident that its effects would have been particularly felt in those countries which were the scene of its actions? Whence comes it, then, that whilst a great part of Europe was groaning under feudal oppression, the middle class, whose only title to nobility was the fruit of their intelligence and labor, appeared in Italy so powerful, so brilliant and flourishing? I will not contend that this development was attributable to the Popes; but, at least, we must grant that they never opposed it. Now, if we observe a similar phenomenon in Spain, and particularly in Aragon, where the Pontifical influence was great; if the same thing is observable in the north of Europe, inhabited by people whom Catholicity alone has civilized; if, in fine, the same phenomenon is realized, with greater or less rapidity, in all countries exclusively subject to the belief and authority of the Church, we may conclude that Catholicity contains nothing opposed to the movement of civilization, and that it is not opposed to a just and legitimate development of the popular element. I cannot think how it is possible for any one who has read history to accord to Protestantism the honor of being favorable to the interests of the multitude. Its origin was essentially aristocratic; and in those countries in which it has succeeded in taking root, it has established aristocracy.upon such firm foundations, that the revolutions of three centuries have not been able to overturn it. Witness, for a proof of this, what has taken place in Germany, England, and all the north of Europe. It has been said that Calvinism is more favorable to the democratical element; and that if it had prevailed in France it would have established a system of federative republic in place of monarchy. Whatever may be the value of this conjecture upon a change which would certainly not have been very beneficial to the future prospects of that nation, it is perfectly certain that no other system than that of aristocracy would have been found practicable in France; for circumstances at that period would admit of nothing else; and the aristocrats who were at the head of religious innovation, would admit of no other organization. Had Protestantism triumphed in France, it is probable that the poor of that country, in imitation of their brethren in Germany, would have claimed a share in the rich booty; but they certainly would not have found Calvin's proverbial harshness more advantageous to them than the furious rashness of Luther was to the Germans. It is probable that these wretched villagers, who, according to contemporary writers, had nothing to eat but rye-bread, with no animal food, and slept upon a bundle of straw, with a board for their pillow, would not have felt themselves more comfortable than their brethren in Germany, had they thought proper to particiate in the effects of the new doctrines. In this case, they would not have been punished, but exterminated, like their brethren beyond the Rhine. In England, the sudden disappearance of the monasteries produced pauperism. Their property having fallen into the hands of laymen, the religious being driven from their abodes, the poor who subsisted upon the alms of these holy establishments were left without the means of subsistence. And observe, that the evil was not temporary; it has continued to our own days, and is now one of the greatest evils afflicting Great Britain. I am aware that almsgiving is 856 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. said to encourage indolence; but it is very certain that England, with her poor-laws and her legal charity, contains a far greater number of destitute poor than Catholic countries. It will be difficult to convince me, that to let people die of hunger is a good means of developing the popular element. Protestantism must have contained something very repulsive to the democrats of that period, since we find it rejected in Spain and Italy, the two countries in which the people enjoyed the greatest share of prosperity and rights. And this becomes still more worthy of attention, when we remark that religious innovation took root wherever the. feudal aristocracy predominated. Look, it will be said, at the United Provinces; but this example only proves that Protestantism, determined to find supporters, willingly took part with the mal-contents. If Philip II. had been a zealous Protestant, the United Provinces would probably have alleged that they were unwilling to remain any longer subject to an heretical prince. These provinces were for a long time under the exclusive influence of Catholicity, and yet they were prosperous; the popular element was developed in their bosom, without meeting any obstacle on the part of religion. Exactly at the beginning of the sixteenth century they made the discovery, that they could no longer prosper without abjuring the faith of their ancestors. Observe the geographical position of the United Provinces; see them surrounded by reformists offering to assist them; and you will find in political considerations the reason which you may seek in vain in imaginary affinity between the Protestant system and the interests of the people. (35) CHAPTER LXI. ON THE VALUE OF THE DIFFERENT POLITICAL FORMS-CHARACTER OF MONARCHY IN EUROPE. THE enthusiasm enkindled in Europe in latter times, has cooled down by degrees; experience has shown that a political organization not in accordance with the social organization is of no advantage to a nation, but rather overwhelms it with evil. Men also understand, and not without difficulty, simple as the matter is, that political systems should be regarded solely as a means of ameliorating the condition of the people, and that political liberty, to be at all rational, must be made a medium for the acquisition of civil liberty. Amongst enlightened men, these are ordinary ideas; fanaticism for such or such political forms, considered abstractly from their civil results, is now abandoned as a thing denoting ignorance, or as a discreditable means hypocritically made use of by the ambitious, devoid of real merit, whose only way to fortune is disturbance and revolution. It cannot, however, be denied that, considered as simple instruments, certain political forms, such as mixed, moderate, constitutional, or representative governments, or whatever they be designated, have acquired in some countries consideration and solidity; and that, in many countries, any principle which might be considered opposed to representative forms, and only favorable to absolute ones, would be repudiated beforehand. Civil liberty has become necessary to the people of Europe; and in some nations the idea of this liberty is so identified with that of political liberty, that it is difficult to explain how civil liberty can exist under an absolute monarchy. We must therefore examine what are the tendencies of the Catholic and those of the Protestant religions. I will proceed so as to discover these tendencies by an impartial analysis of historical facts. Never, perhaps, as M. Guizot felicitously observes, were the natural course of things, and the hidden ways of Providence, less understood. Wheresoever we meet not with assemblies, elections, urns, and PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 857 votes, we imagine power must be absolute, and liberty unprotected. I have an express design in making use of the word tendencies, because it is clear th.,t Catholicity has no dogma on this point-it does not pronounce upon the advantages of any particular form of government. The Roman Pontiff acknowledges equally as his son the Catholic seated upon the bench of an American Assembly, and the most humble subject of the most powerful monarch. The Catholic religion is too prudent to descend upon any such ground. Emanating from heaven itself, she diffuses herself, like the light of the sun, over all things, enlightens and strengthens all, and is never obscured or tarnished. Her object is to conduct man to heaven, by furnishing him on his passage with great assistance and consolation upon earth; she ceases not to point out to him eternal truths; she gives him in all his affairs, salutary counsels; but the moment we come to mere details, she has no obligation to impose, no duty to enjoin. She impresses upon his mind her sacred maxims of morality, admonishing him never to depart from them; like a tender mother speaking to her son, she says to him, "Provided you depart not from my instructions, do what you consider most expedient." But is it true that there is in Catholicity at least a tendency to obstruct liberty? What has been the result of Protestantism in Europe with regard to political forms? In what has it corrected or ameliorated the work of Catho licity? In the centuries preceding the sixteenth, the organization of European society was so complicated, the development of all the intellectual faculties had arrived at such a point, the contention of interests was so lively, in fine, every nation was so enlarged by the successive agglomeration of provinces, that a central, forcible, energetic power, predominating over all individual pretensions and those of classes, was indispensable to the peace and prosperity of the people. Europe had no other hope for peace; for wherever there exists a great number of various, opposite, and all powerful elements, a regulating action is necessary to prevent violent shocks, to calm excessive ardor, to moder ate the rapidity of motion, to prevent a continual war, which would necessa. rily lead to destruction and chaos. This immediately gave to the monarchical principle a fresh and irresistible impulse; and as this impulse was felt in every European country, even in those possessing republican institutions, it evidently resulted from causes that lay deep in the social condition of the times. At the present day there is not a publicist of any note who would question these truths. During the last half century, in fact, events have occurred well calculated to demonstrate that in Europe monarchy is something more than usurpation and tyranny. In the very countries in which democratical ideas have taken root, it has been found necessary to modify them, and in some degree to depart from them, in order to preserve the throne, which is regarded as the best safeguard of the great interests of society. It is the infirmity of all things human, however good and salutary they may be, always to bring with them an accompaniment of inconveniences and evils. Monarchy could not evidently be exempt from this general rule; in other words, the great extension of force and power was sure to produce abuse and excess. The European nations are not of a sufficiently patient character, nor of a sufficiently moderate temperament, to endure with resignation all sorts of disorders. The European entertains so profound an idea of his dignity, that he cannot comprehend the quietism of the Oriental nations, living in the midst of degradation, bowing their slavish heads before the despot who despises and oppresses them. Hence, whilst we in Europe acknowledge and feel the necessity of a very strong power, we have always endeavored to take measures for restraining and preventing the abuse of this power. Nothingexalts so much the grandeur and dignity of the European nations as the comparison of them with those of Asia. The latter have no better means of delivering themselves from oppres 858 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. sion than the assassination of their sovereigns. Whilst the blood of one monarch is still warm, another ascends his throne, trampling with a disdainful foot on the heads of nations as cruel as they are degraded. Not so in Earope; we have always recourse to intellectual means; we have established institutions which lastingly protect the people from oppression and excesses. We cannot deny that our efforts have cost torrents of blood, or affirm that we have always adopted the most expedient means; but on this point Europe, guided by the same spirit as in all other matters, has become anxious to substitute right in the place of mere might. This is no recent problem; it existed when European society was in its infancy, and in these latter times has been overlooked. Great efforts were made many centuries ago to resolve it. Observe how Count de Maistre states his opinions on this difficult problem: " Although the greatest and most general interest of sovereignty consists in its being just, and although the cases in which it transgresses this condition are incomparably fewer than the others, unfortunately it does, however, frequently transgress it; and the particular character of certain sovereigns may so far augment these inconveniences, that in order to render them supportable, it'is necessary to compare them with those which would exist if there were no sovereign. It was therefore impossible that men should not, from time to time, make efforts to secure themselves against the excess of this enormous prerogative; but on this point the world has adopted two widely different systems. The daring tribe of Japheth has at all times been gravitating (if we may use the expression) towards what is termed liberty; that is, towards that social condition in which the influence of the governing powers is least sensibly felt. Ever jealous of his rights and liberties, the European has sought to preserve them, sometimes by expelling his rulers, and at other times by opposing to them the barrier of law. He has tried every thing, every imaginable form of government, to set himself free from his rulers, or to restrain their power. "The immense posterity of Shem and Chain have pursued another course. From the earliest ages down to our own tirme they have always said to their fellowmen, Do whatever you please, and when we are tired we will put you to death. Besides, they have never been able or willing to comprehend the nature of a republic; the balance of power, all those privileges, all those fundamental laws of which we are so proud, are totally unknown to them. Among them, the richest and most independent man, the possessor of immense movable wealth, absolutely at liberty to transport it whither he pleases, sure, moreover, of entire protection upon European ground, and threatens.d at home with the rope or the dagger, prefers them, nevertheless, to the miserv of dying of ennui among us. But no one will ever think of recommending to Europe the public law of Asia and Africa, so short and clear; but as power in Ecrome is always so much feared, discussed; attacked, or transferred, since nothing so much wounds our pride as despotic government, the most general European prcbleip is to know hozq sovereign power may be restrained without being destrc3/ec'." (D1X Pape, liv. ii. chap. 2.) This spirit of political liberty, this desire of limiting power by means'f in. stitutions, did not originate with the French philosophers; before their tine and long before the appearance of Protestantism, it was circulating in the veiin, of the European people. History has left us irrefragable testimonies of this truth. What institutions were deemed suitable for the accomplishment of this object? Certain assemblies, in which the voice of the nation's interests and opinions might be heard-assemblies formed in various ways, and meeting from time to time around the throne to make their complaints and assert their claims. As it was impossible for these assemblies to constitute the government without destroying the monarchy, it was necessary, in one way or another, tc secure their influence in state affairs; and I do not see that anything better PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 359 has hitherto been devised for attaining this object than the right of intervention in the enactment of laws,' a right guaranteed to them by another, that may be justly termed the right arm of national representation,-the right of voting the supplies. Much has been written respecting constitutions and representative governments, but this is the essential point. Many and various,odifications may be introduced, but in reality all consists in the establishment of the throne as the centre of power and of action, surrounded by assemblies that shall deliberate upon the laws and the taxes. Does political liberty in this point of view originate in Protestant ideas? Is it under any obligation to them? Has it, in fine, any reproach against Catholicity? I open the works of Catholic writers anterior to Protestantism, in order to ascertain their sentiments on this subject, and I find that they take a clear view of the problem to be solved. I examine rigidly whether they teach anything opposed to the progress of the world, to the dignity or the rights of man; I examine, again, whether they bear any affinity to despotism or to tyranny, and I find them full of sympathy for the progress of enlightenment and of mankind, inflamed with noble and generous sentiments, and zealous for the happiness of the multitude. I remark, indeed, that their hearts swell with indignation at the mere names of tyranny and despotism. I open the records of history; I study the opinions and customs of the nations, and the predominating institutions; I behold on all sides nothing but fueros, privileges, liberty, cortes, states-general, municipalities, and juries. All this appears in the greatest confusion, but I see it; and I am not astonished to discover an absence of order, for it is a new world just arisen from chaos. I ask myself if the monarch possesses in himself the faculty of making laws; and upon this question I very naturally find variety, uncertainty, and confusion; but I observe that the assemblies representing the different classes of the nation take part in the enactment of the laws. I ask whether they have any interference in the great affairs of the state; and I find it stated in the codes that they are to be consulted on all grave and important affairs: I see' monarchs frequently observing this precept. I ask whether these assemblies possess any guarantees for their existence and their influence; and the codes inform me by the most decisive texts, and a thousand facts are at hand to convince me, that these institutions were deeply rooted in the customs and manners of the people. Now what was then the predominating religion? Catholicity. Were the people much attached to religion? So much so that the spirit of religion predominated over all. Did the clergy possess great influence? Very great. What was the power of the Popes? It was immense. Where do you find the clergy attempting to extend the power of kings to the prejudice of the people? Where are the pontifical decrees against such or such forms? Where are the measures and plans of the Popes for the restriction of one single legitimate right? No reply. Then I say indignantly, Europe, under the influence of Catholicity, arose from chaos to order, civilization advanced at a firm and steady pace, the grand problem of political forms engaged the attention of men of wisdom, questions of morality and laws were receiving a solution favorable to liberty, and yet the influence of the clergy was never greater even in temporal matters, and the power of the Popes was in every sense quite colossal. What! one word from the Sovereign Pontiff would have smitten unto death every form of popular government; and yet such forms were receiving a rapid development. Where, then, is the tendency of the Catholic religion to enslave the people? Where the infamous alliance between kings and Popes to oppress and harass the people, to establish on the throne a ferocious despotism, and to rejoice under its gloomy shades over the misfortune and tears of mankind? When the Popes had a quarrel with any kingdom, was it usually with thu king or the people? When it was necessary to oppose a firm front against 360 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. tyranny and oppression, who stood forward more promptly or more firmly than the Sovereign Pontiff? Does not Voltaire'himself admit that the Popes restrained princes, protected the people, put an end to the quarrels of the time by a wise intervention, reminded both kings and people of their duties, and hurled anathemas against those enormities which they could not prevent? (Quoted by M. de Maistre, Du Pape.) It is very remarkable that the Bull In Coena Donmini, which created so much alarm, contains in its fifth article an excommunication against " those who should levy new taxes upon their estates, or should increase those already existing beyond the bounds marked out by right." The spirit of deliberation, so common even at this period, and which formed so singular a contrast with the tendency to violent measures, arose in a great measure from the example given by the Catholic Church during so many centuries. In fact, it is impossible to point out a society in which more assemblies have been held, combining in them every thing distinguished by science and virtue. General, national, provincial Councils -and diocesan synods are to be met with in every page of the Church's history. Such an example, exposed during centuries to the view of the people, could not fail to influence and affect customs and laws. In Spain the greatest part of the Councils of Toledo were also national congresses; whilst the episcopal authority performed its functions in them, watching over the purity of dogmas, and providing for the wants of discipline, the great affairs of the state were also discussed in them in harmony with the secular power. In them were enacted those laws which are still an object of admiration to modern observers. The utopias of Rousseau are now fallen into complete disrepute among the best publicists. Representative governments are no longer to be defended as a means of bringing the general will into action, but as an instrument, through the medium of which reason and good sense may be consulted, which would otherwise remain dispersed throughout the nation. Legislative assemblies are now represented to us, in works upon constitutional law, as the foci in which all knowledge serving to throw light on the difficulties of public affairs may be concentrated; they are held up to us as the representatives of all legitimate interests, as the organ of all reasonable opinions, the voice of all just complaints, a channel of perpetual communication between governors and their subjects, a measure of justice in the laws, a means of rendering the laws respectable and venerable in the eyes of the people; in short, as a permanent guarantee that a government, never consulting its own interests, should study only public utility and expediency. At a time when we are informed in such fine terms what these assemblies ought to be, not what they are, it will not be uninteresting to refer to the Councils; for we see at a glance that the Councils must in a certain manner explain the nature and spirit, and point out the motives and aim, of political assemblies. I am aware of the fundamental differences existing between these two assemblies; men who receive their powers from popular election cannot, in fact, be placed in the same rank as those who have been appointed by the Holy Ghost to govern the Church of God; neither can the monarch, who derives his right to the throne from the fundamental laws of the nation, be confounded with that rock upon which the Church of Christ is built. I grant also that, whether with regard to the subjects discussed in the Councils, or with regard to the persons engaged in these discussions, and to the extension of the Church over the whole earth, there must necessarily be a great dissimilarity between the Councils and political assemblies, with respect to the epoch of their being assembled, and the mode of their organization and of their proceedings. But we are not here about to imagine an ingenious parallel, and to seek with subtilty resemblances which do not exist; my only aim is to show the influence which the lessons of prudence and maturity given for so long a lime by the PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 361 Church must have exercised upon political laws and customs. If we consult the annals of the nations of antiquity, or those of modern times, we shall disP cover that all deliberative assemblies are composed of persons who have a right to sit in them by a regulation stated in the laws. But to admit into them a nBan of knowledge, simply because he is so, is to pay a noble tribute to meritto proclaim in the mqst solemn manner, that the care of ruling the world belongs properly to intelligence. This the Church alone has done. I make this observation to prove that society is indebted mainly to the Church for the progress it has made in this respect. I will adduce on this point a fact that has not perhaps been sufficiently attended to, but which clearly shows that the Catholic Church was the first to seek out men of talent wherever they were to be found, and unhesitatingly to allow them influence in public affairs. I will not speak of that spirit which forms one of her distinctive characteristics among all other societies, which has ever led her to seek merit, and nothing but merit, and to raise it to the highest functions-a spirit which no one can deny her, and which has eminently contributed to her splendor and preponderance. But it is very remarkable that the influence of this spirit has been felt where, at first sight, it might have been least expected. In fact, it is well known that, according to the doctrines of the Church, no private individual has any right to interfere in the decisions and deliberations of the Councils; hence, however learned a theologian or jurist may be, his knowledge gives him no right whatever to take part in those august assemblies. Nevertheless, it is well known that the Church has ever taken care to call to them men who, whatever might be their titles, excelled most by their talents or their learning. Who does not read with pleasure the list of learned men who, although not Bishops, were present at the Council of Trent? In modern society, do not talent, wisdom, and genius carry the highest head, command the greatest consideration and respect, and present the best claims to.the direction of public affairs, and to the exercise of a preponderating influence? These should know that nowhere have their claims been respected or their dignity acknowledged so well as in the Church. What society, in fact, has ever sought, as the Church has, to elevate them, to consult them in the most important affairs, and to afford them an opportunity of shining in gran' assemblies? In the Church, birth and riches are of no importance. If you are a man of high merit, untarnished by misconduct, and at the same time conspicuous by your abilities and your knowledge, that is enough-she will look upon you as a great man, will always show you extreme consideration, treat you with respect, and listen to you with deference. And since your brow, though sprung from obscurity, is radiant with fame, it will be held worthy to bear the mitre, the Cardinal's hat, or the tiara. To speak in the language of the day, I may remark, that the aristocracy of knowledge owes much of its importance to the ideas and discipline of the Church. (36) CHAPTER LXII. THE DEVELOPMENT OF MONARCHY IN EUROPE. A SINGLE glance at the state of Europe in the fifteenth century enables us to discover that such a state of things could not long exist, and that of the three elements claiming preference, the monarchical must necessarily prevail. And it could not be otherwise; for we have always seen that societies, after a long period of trouble and agitation, place themselves at last under the protection of that power which offers them the greatest security and well-being. Beholding, on the one hand, those great feudatories, so proud, so exacting, so turbulent, 46 2F 362 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITIY. enemies to each other, and rivals of the king as well as of the people; on the other hand, the commons, whose existence appears under so many different forms-whose rights, privileges, fueros and liberties present so various and complex an aspect-whose ideas have no constant and well defined direction;we conclude at once, that neither were possessed of sufficient force to struggle against the royal power, already acting by a fixed plan and a determinate system, seizing every opportunity which might serve to forward its views.. Who is not aware of the sagacity displayed by Ferdinand the Catholic in developing and implanting his prominent idea-that of centralizing power, giving it vigor, and rendering its action forcible and universal; that is, the idea of founding a true monarchy? And why not acknowledge in the immortal Ximenes a worthy and more eminent continuator of this policy? It would be erroneous to consider this as an evil to nations. All publicists agree that it was necessary to give strength and stability to power, and prevent its action from becoming weak or intermittent; but the only representative of real power at that time was the throne. Hence, to fortify and aggrandize royal power was of real necessity; ill plans and efforts of man would have failed to place an obstacle in its way. But it remains, nevertheless, to be seen, whether this aggrandizement of royal power outstepped its due bounds; and this is the place for contrasting Protestantism with Catholicity, that we may ascertain which of them was culpable, if either, and to what extent. This is a very important and curious subject, but at the same time one of difficulty and delicacy. In fact, such a change has taken place of late in the meaning of words, the aversion which parties profess for each other is so profound, each one repels with such impetuosity every thing which bears the most remote resemblance to what is esteemed by his adversaries, that it is an arduous undertaking to render the state of the question and the meaning of words comprehensible. I ask one thing of my readers of all opinions; that is, that. they will suspend their judgment until they have read the whole of what I have to adduce on this point. If they consent to this, and do not quarrel with the first word that shocki them-in a word, if they have sufficient patience to hear before they judge, I am confident that, if we do not altogether agree, which is impossible amid such a variety of opinions, they will at least grant that I have taken an apparently reasonable view of the subject, and that my conjectures are not altogether unfounded. I shall commence, in the first place, by completely laying aside the question whether it was advantageous or not to society that, in the greatest part of European monarchies, royal power should have any other limits than those naturally imposed upon it by the state of ideas and customs. This question some will answer in the affirmative, others in the negative; and I need not observe to what party they respectively belong. To many people the word liberty is a scandal, just as the term absolute power is with others synonymous with despotism. But what is that liberty which the former repel with so much force? what meaning is attached to this word in their dictionaries? They have witnessed the French Revolution, with its iniquities and frightful crimes, and they have heard it continually crying out for liberty: they have witnessed the Spanish Revolution, with its vociferations of death, and its sanguinary excesses-its injustice, its disdain for every thing that Spaniards had been accustomed to esteem the most valuable and sacred; and yet they have hlard the cries of this Revolution also for liberty. What was to be expected? Why, what we now witness. They confounded the name of liberty with all sorts of impieties and crimes; and, in consequence, they hated it, they repelled it, they fought against it sword in hand. In vain were they informed that the cortes was an ancient institution; they replied, that the ancient cortes was not like that of their times. In vain were they reminded that our laws ordained the nation's right of interference by its vote on the levying of taxes. They PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 868 replied: "We are well aware of it; but the nation is not now represented by those who interfere in its affairs; they only avail themselves of this pretended title to enslave both the king and the people." They were -told that the representatives of the different classes had formerly the right of intervention in the important affairs of the state. " What class do you represent," they replied; "you who degrade the monarch, insult and persecute the nobility, abuse and plunder the clergy, despising the people, and making their customs and their religious belief a subject for your sneers? What, then, do you represent? Is it the Spanish nation, when you trample on her religion and laws, when you excite social dissolution on all sides, and make blood flow in torrents? How can you call yourselves the restorers of our fundamental laws, when we find nothing either in you or in your acts which marks the true Spaniard; when all your theories, plans, and projects are only miserable copies of foreign books but too well known, while you have forgotten your own language?" I pray the reader will cast his eyes over the files of the journals, the bulletins of the cortes, and other documents that remain of the two epochs of 1812 and 1820; let him also call to mind the events we have recently witnessed; let him afterwards peruse the records and memorials of anterior epochs,-our codes, our books, every thing, in fine, capable of throwing light upon the character, the ideas, and the customs of the Spanish people; then let him lay his hand upon his heart, and, whatever be his political opinions, let him tell us, upon his honor, if he finds the least resemblance between the past and the present; if he does not, at the very first glance, perceive a striking and violent contrast between the two epochs-a chasm, in fact, to fill up which, I say it with grief, would require heaps of fresh ruins, ashes, dead bodies, and torrents of blood. Were we to place the question beyond the influence of the empoisoned atmosphere of human passions and of bitter recollections, we might, it is true, very well examine the expediency of allowing the royal authority to attain to a growth that set it free from every kind of check or restraint, even in affairs of the most essential importance and in the voting of the government supplies. The question would then have merely a historico-political aspect, could not be confounded with actual practice, and, consequently, would not affect either the interests or the opinions of our time. However that might be, I will not stop to consider or to notice what has been thought and said upon the subject, but will take up the hypothesis, that the disappearance from the body politic, at that time, of every element save the monarchical, was a misfortune to the people, and an obstacle to the progress of true civilization. And whose was the fault? let me ask. It is remarkable that the greatest increase of royal power in Europe dates precisely from the commencement of Protestantism. In England, from the time of Henry VIII., not only did monarchy prevail, but a despotism so cruel that no vain appearances of impotent forms have availed to disguise its excesses. In France, after the Huguenot war, royal power became more absolute than ever;' in Sweden, Gustayus ascended the throne, and from that time kings began to exercise an almost unlimited power; in Denmark, monarchy continued, and became stronger; in Germany, the kingdom of Prussia was formed, and absolute forms generally prevailed; in Austria, the empire of Charles V. arose in all its power and splendor; in Italy, the small republics were fast disappearing, and the people, under some title or another, became subject to princes; in Spain, in fine, the ancient cortes of Castile, Aragon, Valencia, and Catalonia fell into disuse: that is to say, instead of seeing, by the accession of Protestantism, the people take one step towards representative forms, we find, on the contrary, that they rapidly advanced towards absolute government. This is a certain, incontestable fact. Sufficient attention has not perhaps been 864 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. paid to so singular a coincidence; but it is not the less real, and is certainly of a nature to suggest numerous and interesting reflections. Was this coincidence purely accidental? Was there any hidden connection between Pro. testantism and the development and definitive establishment of absolutism? 1 think there was; and I will even add, that, had Catholicism retained an exclusive sway in Europe, the power of the throne would have been gradually diminished-that representative forms would probably not have disappeared altogether-that the people would have continued to take part in national affairs-that we should have been much farther advanced in civilization, much better fitted for the enjoyment of true liberty-and that this liberty would not be associated in our minds with scenes of horror. Yes, the fatal Reformation has given a wrong direction to European society, injured civilization, created necessities that previously had no existence, and opened chasms which it cannot close. It destroyed many elements of good, and consequently produced a radical change in the conditions of the political problem. This I think I can demonstrate. CHAPTER LXIII. TWO KINDS OF DEMOCRACY. THERE is in the history of Europe one leading fact contained in all its pages, and still visible in our days, viz. the parallel march of two democracies, which, although sometimes apparently alike, are, in reality, very different in their nature, origin, and aim. The one is based upon the knowledge and dignity of man, and on the right which he possesses of enjoying a certain amount of liberty conformable to reason and justice. With ideas more or less clear, more or less uniform, upon the real origin of society and of power, it entertains at least very clear, precise, and fixed ones upon the real object and aim of both. Whether the right of commanding proceeds directly and immediately from God, or whether we suppose it communicated previously to society, and transmitted afterwards to those who govern, it always grants that power is for the common weal, and that, if it does not direct its actions to this end, it falls into tyranny. To privileges, honors, and distinctions of every kind, it applies its favorite touchstone-the public good; whatever is opposed to this, is rejected as noxious; whatever does not tend to promote it, is repudiated as superfluous. Convinced that knowledge and virtue are the only things of real worth, and deserving of consideration in the distribution of the social functions, this democracy requires them to be sought without ceasing, that they may be elevated to the summit of power and of glory; it goes to seek them in the midst of the deepest obscurity. A nobleman, proud of his titles and his heraldry, and boasting of the glorious deeds of his ancestors, without being able to imitate them, is, in its estimation, an object of ridicule; it will allow such a man to enjoy his riches, that the sacred right of property may not be violated; but it will remove from his grasp, by all lawful means, the influence he might derive from the nobility of his blood. In fine, if it takes nobilitv, birth or riches into consideration, it is not for any intrinsic worth of these advantages, but because they are signs which lead us to expect a more accomplished education, more knowledge and probity. Full of generous ideas, this democracy, placing the dignity of man in the highest degree, reminding man of his rights, and also of his duties, is indignant at the very name of tyranny. It hates tyranny, condemns it, repels it, and is perpetually employed in discovering the best means for preventing it. Wise and calm, as the inseparable companion of reason and good sense must ever be, PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 65 it agrees very well with monarchy; but we may rest assured that its desires have generally been, that the laws of the country should, in one way or another, place a restraint upon the excesses of kings. Aware that the rock against which they ran the risk of being wrecked, was the excess 6f contributions levied upon the people, its favorite idea, which it has never abandoned, even when it was impracticable, has been to restrain the unlimited faculties of power with respect to contributions. Another of its predominating ideas has been to prevent the will of man from prevailing in the formation or application of the laws. It has ever sought to guarantee and secure in some way, that the will should not usurp the place of reason. Such has been the force of this universal desire, that it has been indelibly stamped upon European manners, arfd the most absolute monarchs have been compelled to gratify it. Hence one thing very worthy of remark is, that the throne has ever been surrounded by respectable counsellors, whose existence was insured either by the laws or by the national customs. These counsellors certainly could not preserve, in all circumstances, the independence necessary for the accomplishment of their object, but they did not fail to be of great service; for their mere existence was an eloquent protest against unjust and arbitrary regulations; it was a noble personification of reason and justice, pointing out the sacred limits ever to be regarded as inviolable by the most powerful monarch. This is also the reason why sovereigns in Europe never exercise themselves the faculty of pronouncing judgment, differing in this respect from the sultans. The laws and customs of Europe energetically repulse this faculty, as fatal to the people as it is to the monarch; and the mere recital of such an attempt would excite public indignation against its author. The meaning of all this is, that this principle, so much extolled, that it is not the monarch but the law that commands, has been received in Europe for many centuries; it was in full force in all the European nations long before modern publicists emphatically enunciated it. It will be said, perhaps, that if this was the case in theory, it was not so in practice. I do not deny that there were reprehensible exceptions, but the principle was generally respected. As a case in point, let us take the most absolute reign of modern times, with the most unlimited royal power in all its splendor, in its apogee,-the reign in which the king could exclaim with too much pride, but yet with truth, " I am the state"-that of Louis the Fourteenth. It lasted more than half a century, with an astonishing variety and complication of events. How many deaths, confiscations, and banishments took place in it, executed by the royal command, without any judicial ordeal! Perhaps some arbitrary acts of this time may be cited; but let them be compared with what was passing under equivalent circumstances amongst the nations out of Europe: let any one recall to mind what took place at the time of the Roman empire, and the excesses of absolute royalty wherever Christianity did not exist, and he will see that the excesses committed in European monarchies are scarcely worthy of being mentioned. This is a proof that the distinction made between monarchical governments, whether absolute or despotic, is not arbitrary and fictitious.- Any one acquainted with the legislation and history of Europe must be well aware that this distinction is correct, and he will be forced to smile at those boisterous declamations in which malice or ignorance endeavors to confound the two systems of government. This limit imposed upon power, this circle of reason and justice which we always find traced around it, derives its origin principally fxom the ideas disseminated by Christianity, whether it have its guarantee in ideas and manners or in political forms. It is Christianity that has proclaimed, " Reason and justice, knowledge and virtue, are every thing; the mere will of man, his birth, his titles, are of no intrinsic value." These words have penetrated 2F 2 366 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATIIOLICITY. every where, from the palace of kings to the poor man's cottage; and, from the moment that the mind of an entire people became imbued with such ideas, Asiatic despotism became impracticable. In fact, in the absence of every political form lithiting the power of the monarch, a voice resounds in his e~ars on all sides, exclaiming, " We are not thy slaves, we are thy subjects; thou art a king, but thou art a man; and a man who, like ourselves, must appear one day before the Supreme Judge; thou hast the power of making laws, but merely for our interests; thou oanst exact tributes from us, but only such as are necessary for the common weal; thou canst not judge us according to thy caprice, but only conformably to the laws; thou canst not seize our property without rendering thyself more culpable than the common robber, nor make an attempt on our lives, of thy own will, without becoming an assassin; the power thou hast received is not for thy comfort or pleasure, nor for the gratification of thy passions, but solely for our happiness; thou art a person exclusively devoted to the public weal; if thou forgettest this, thou art a tyrant." Unfortunately, however, together with this spirit of lawful independence, of rational liberty,-together with this just, noble, and generous democracy, there has ever been another accompanying it, and forming with it the most lively contrast. The latter has been extremely injurious to the former, by preventing it from attaining the object of its just pretensions; erroneous in its principles and perverse in its intentions, violent and unjust in its mode of acting, its traces have been everywhere marked by a stream of blood. Instead of obtaining true liberty for the people, it has merely served to deprive them of that which they already possessed; or if it actually found them groaning under the yoke of slavery, it has only served to rivet their chains. Allying itself on all occasions with the basest passions, it has attracted to its standard all'that was most vile and abject in society, and gathered together the most turbulent and ill-disposed men. By cheating its miserable followers with delusive promises, and exciting them with the prospect of plunder and pillage, it has been a perpetual source of commotions, scandals, and bitter animosities, that have at length produced their natural results-persecutions, proscriptions, and executions. Its fundamental dogma was the rejection of all authority of every description, to overturn which was its constant aim; the reward it expected for its labors was to seat itself'upon a throne established amidst universal ruin, to glut itself with the blood of thousands of victims, and to revel in the grossest orgies during the distribution of its blood-stained spoil. In all times, in all countries, riots, popular insurrections, and revolutions have taken place; but, for the last seven centuries, Europe presents these scenes in so singular a character, that it forms a most fitting subject for the reflection of philosophers. In fact, these tendencies towards social dissolution-tendencies, the origin of which it is not difficult to discover in the very heart of man-have not only existed in the bosom of Europe, but have been formed into a theory; as ideas, they have been defended with all the obstinacy and infatuation of a sectarian spirit; and, wherever an opportunity occurred, reduced to practice with unyielding pertinacity and unbridled fury. The system was made up of folly and fanaticism, and carried out with obstinacy, a spirit of proselytism, and monstrods crimes. In every page of its history this truth is attested in characters of blood. Happy our nation, had she not tried the experiment! Europe may be compared to those men of great capacity and of active and intrepid characters, who are either the very best or the very worst of men. Scarcely can a single fact of any weight remain isolated in Europe: there is not a truth that is not useful, nor an error that is not fatal. Ideas have a tendency to become realized, and facts, in their turn, incessantly call in the aid of ideas. If virtues exist, they are explained, and their foundation is sought PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITI CATHOLICITY. 367 for in elevated theories. If crimes are met with, their vindication is attempted on the authority of perverse theories. Nations do not rest satisfied with the practice either of good or evil-they strive to propagate it, and are restless till they have induced their neighbors to imitate them. Nay, there is something beyond a mere spirit of proselytism limited to a few countries-ideas, in our times, aim at nothing short of universal empire. The spirit of propagandism does not date from the French Revolution, nor even from the sixteenth century; from the very dawn of civilization, from the times when the minds of men began to evince symptoms of activity, this phenomenon is apparent, and in a very striking manner. In the agitated Europe of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, we behold the Europe of the nineteenth century, just as the imperfectly defined lineaments of the germ contain forms of the future being. A great part of the sects which assailed the Church, dating from the tenth century, were decidedly revolutionary; they either proceeded from the fatal democracy which I have just mentioned, or derived their support from it. Unfortunately this democracy, restless, unjust and turbulent, having compromised the tranquillity of Europe in the centuries anterior to the sixteenth, found in Protestantism its most fervent propagators. Among the numerous sects into which the pretended reform was immediately divided, some opened the way for it, and others adopted it as their standard. And what must have been the result in the political organization of Europe? I will say it candidly: the disappearance of those political institutions which enabled the different classes of the state to take part in its affairs, was inevitable. Now, as it was very difficult for the European people, considering their character, ideas and customs, to submit for ever to their new condition, as their predominant inclination must have urged them to place bounds upon the extension of power, it was natural that revolutions should ensue; it was natural that future generations should have to witness great catastrophes, such as the English Revolution of the seventeenth century and the French Revolution of the eighteenth. There was a time when it might have been difficult to comprehend these truths; that time is past. The revolutions in which for some centuries the different nations of Europe have been successively involved, have brought within the reach of the least intelligent that social law so frequently realized, viz. that anarchy leads to despotism, and that despotism begets anarchy. Never, at any tine, in any nation (history and experience prove the fact), have anti-social ideas been inculcated, the minds of the people been imbued with the spirit of insubordination and rebellion, without almost immediately provoking the application. of the only remedy at the command of nations in such conflicts, the establishment of a very strong government, which justly or unjustly, legally or not, lifts up its iron arm over every one, and makes all heads bend under its yoke. To clamor and tumult succeeds the most profound silence; the people then easily become resigned to their new condition, for reflection and instinct teach them that although it is well to possess a certain amount of liberty, the first want of society is self-preservation. What was the case in Germany, after the introduction of Protestantism by a succession of religious revolutions? Maxims destructive of all society were propagated, factions formed, insurrections took place; upon the field of battle and upon the scaffolds blood flowed in torrents; but no sooner did the instinct of social preservation begin to operate, than, instead of popular u)rms being established and taking root, every thing tended towards the opposite extreme. And was not this the country in which the people had been flattered by the prospect of unrestrained liberty, of a re-partition and even a community of property; in fine, by the promise of the most absolute equality in every thing. Yet, in this same country, the most striking inequality prevailed, and the feudal aristocracy preserved its full force. In other countries, in which no such hopes of liberty 368 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. and equality had been held out, we can scarcely discover the limits which separated the nobility from the people. In Germany, the nobility still retaineu their wealth and their preponderance, were still surrounded by titles, privileges. and distinctions of every description. In that very country, in which there were such outcries against the power of kings, in which the name of king was declared synonymous with tyrant, the most absolute monarchy was established; and the apostate of the Teutonic order founded that kingdom of Prussia, from which representative forms are still excluded.* In Denmark, Protestantism was established, and with it absolute power immediately took deep root; in Swedea we find, at the very same time, the power of Gustavus established. What was the case in England? Representative forms were not introduced into that country by Protestantism; they existed centuries before, as well as in other nations of Europe. But the monarch who founded the Anglican Church was distinguished for his despotism, and the Parliament, which ought to have restrained him, was most shamefully degraded. What idea can we form of the liberty of a country whose legislators and representatives debased themselves so far as to declare, that any one obtaining a knowledge of the illicit amours of the Queen is bound, under pain of high treason, to bring an accusation against her? What can we think of the liberty of a country, in which the very men who ought to defend that liberty, cringe with so much baseness to the unruly passions of the monarch, that they are not ashamed, in order to flatter the jealousy of the sovereign, to establish that any young female who should marry a king of England, should, under a pain of high treason, be compelled before her marriage to reveal any stain there might be on her virtue? Such ignominious enactments are certainly a stronger proof of abject servility than the declaration of that same Parliament, establishing that the mere will of the monarch should have the force of law. Representative forms preserved in that country at a time when they had disappeared from almost every other nation of Europe, were not, however, a guarantee against tyranny; for, the English cannot assuredly boast of the liberty they enjoyed under the reigns of Henry VIII. and Elizabeth. Perhaps in no country in Europe was less liberty enjoyed, in no country were the people more oppressed under popular forms, in no country did despotism prevail to a greater extent. If there be anything which can convince us of these truths, in case the facts already cited should be found insufficient, it is undoubtedly the efforts made by the English to acquire liberty. And if the efforts made to shake off the.yoke of oppression are to be regarded as a sure sign of its galling effects, we are justified in thinking that the oppression under which England was groaning must have been very severe, since that country has passed through so long and terrible a revolution, in which so many tears and so much blood has been shed. When we consider what has taken place in France, we remark that religious wars have always given an ascendency to royal power. After such long agitations, so many troubles and civil wars, we see the reign of Louis XIV., and we hear that proud monarch exclaim, " I am the state." We have here the most complete personification of the absolute power which always follows anarchy. Have the European nations had to complain of the unlimited power exercised by monarchs? have they had to regret that all the representative forms which could ensure their liberties perished under the ascendency of the throne? Let them blame Protestantism for it, which spreading the germs of anarchy all over Europe, created an imperious, urgent, and inevitable necessity for centralizing rule, for fortifying royal power: it was necessary to stop up every source from which dissolvent principles might flow, and to keep within narrow bounds all the elements which, by contact and vicinity, were ready to ignite and produce a fatal conflagration. * When this was written.-Tr. PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICIIY. 369 Every reflecting man will agree with me on this point. Considering the aggrandizement of absolute power, they will discover in it nothing but the realization of a fact already long ago everywhere observed. Assuredly, the monarchs of Europe cannot be compared, either by the fact of their origin or the character of their measures, to those despots who, under different titles, have usurped the command of society at the critical moment when it was near its dissolution; but it may be said with reason, that the unlimited extent of their power has been caused by a great social necessity, viz. that of one sole and forcible authority, without which the preservation of public order was impossible. We cannot without dismay take a view of Europe after the appearance of Protestantism. What frightful dissolution! What erroneous ideas! What relaxation of morals! What a multitude of sects! M hat animosity in men's minds! What rage, what ferocity! Violent disputes, interminable debates, accusations, recriminations without end; troubles, rebellion, intestine and foreign wars, sanguinary battles, and atrocious punishments. Such is the picture that Europe presents; such are the effects of this apple of discord thrown among men who are brethren. And what was sure to be the result of this confusion, of this retrograde movement, by which society seemed returning to violent means, to the tyranny of might over right? The result was sure to be what it has in fact been: the instinct of preservation, stronger than the passions and the frenzy of man, was sure to prevail; it suggested to Europe the only means of self-preservation; royal power, already in the ascendant, and verging towards its highest point, was sure to end by attaining it in reality; there to become isolated and completely separated from the people, and to impose silence on popular passions. What ought to have been effected by a wise direction of ideas, was accomplished by the force of a very powerful institution; the vigor of the sceptre Lad to neutralize the impulse given to society towards its ruin. If we consider attentively, we shall find that such is the meaning of the event of 1680 in Sweden, when that country was subjected to the fierce will of Charles XI.; such the meanihg of the event of 1669 in Denmark, when that nation, wearied fwith anarchy, supplicated King Frederick III. to declare the monarchy hereditary and absolute, which he in fact did; such, in fine, is the meaning of what took place in Holland in 1747, and of the creation of an hereditary stadtlxolder. If we require more convincing examples, we have the despotism of Cromwell in England after such terrible revolutions, and that of Napoleon in France after the republic. (37) CHAPTER LXIV. STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE THREE SOCIAL ELEMENTS. WHEN once these three elements of government, monarchy, aristocracy, and Democracy, began each to contend for the ascendency, the most certain means Of securing the victory to monarchy, to the exclusion of the other two elements, was to drive one of these latter into acts of turbulence and outrage; for it thus became absolutely necessary to establish one sole, powerful, unfettered centre of action, that would be able to awe the turbulent and to insure public order. Now, just at this time, the position of the popular element was full of hope, but also beset with dangers; and hence, to preserve the influence it had already acquired, and to increase its ascendency and power, the greatest moderation and circumspection were requisite. Monarchy had already acquired great power, and, having obtained it in part by espousing the cause of the people against the lords, it came to be regarded as the natural protector of popular interests. It certainly had some claims to this title, but no less certainly did 47 ,370 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. it find in this circumstance a most favorable opportunity for extending its power to an unlimited degree, at the expense of the rights and liberties of the people. There existed a germ of division between the aristocracy and the commons, which afforded the monarchs an opportunity of curtailing the rights and powers of the lords, convinced, moreover, as they were, that any measure tending to such an object would be well received by the multitude. But, on the other hand, the monarch might rest assured that the lords would hail with delight any act tending to humble the people, who already had raised their heads so high when the feudal aristocracy was to be resisted; and, in this case, if the people committed any excesses, if they adopted maxims and doctrines subversive of public order, no one could prevent the monarch from putting a stop to their proceedings by all possible means. The lords, who were powerful enough to repress such disorders themselves, would very naturally be glad to leave such a work to the monarch, fearing lest the people, in their exasperation against them, might deprive them of their prerogatives, their honors, their property, and even of their lives; or from the secret satisfaction they would naturally feel at seeing that rival power brought down which had recently humbled themselves, and whose rivalry had been maintained through so many and such ferocious struggles. In such an undertaking, the lords would naturally bring the whole weight of their influence to the support of the monarch, thus taking advantage of the false direction given to the popular movement to revenge themselves upon the people, whilst veiling their vengeance under the pretext of public utility. The people, it is true, possessed various means of defence; but when isolated and opposed to the throne, they found these means too weak to afford them any hope of victory. Learning, indeed, was no longer the exclusive patrimony of any privileged class, but knowledge had not had time to become diffused so far as to form a public opinion strong enough to exercise any direct influence upon the affairs of government. The art of printing was already producing its results, but was not yet sufficiently developed to produce that rapid and extensive circulation of ideas which has subsequently been attained. Notwithstanding the efforts everywhere made at that time to promote the diffusion of knowledge, we need only understand correctly the nature and character of the knowledge of the period, to be convinced that neither in substance nor in form was it calculated to become, to any general extent, the property of the popular classes. Thanks to the progress of commerce and the arts, there arose, it is true, a new description of wealth, destined of necessity to become the patrimony of the people. But commerce and the arts were then in their infancy, and did not possess either the extent or the influence which, at a later period, connected them intimately with every branch of society. Except in some few countries of very little importance, the position of the merchant and the artizan could not secure them any great amount of influence of itself. Considering the course of events, and the elevation which royal power had acquired on the ruins of feudalism, the only means for restricting monarchical power, until the democratic element should have acquired sufficient force to be respected was the union of the aristocracy with the people. But such a coalition was not easily to be obtained, since between the aristocracy and the people there existed so much animosity and rivalry-a rivalry which, to a certain extent, was inevitable, owing to the opposition of their respective interests. We must bear in mind, however, that the nobility were not the only aristocracy; there was another much more powerful and influential than they-the clergy. This latter class was at thattime possessed of all the ascendency and influence which both moral and material means can confer; in fact, besides the religious character, which insured the respect and veneration of the people, they were possessed at the same time, of abundant riches; which easily secured to them, PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 37:1 on the one hand, gratitude and influence; and, on the other, made them feared by the great, and respected by monarchs. Now, here is one of the leading mistakes of Protestantism: to crush the power of the clergy at such a time, was to accelerate the complete victory of absolute monarchy, to leave the people defenceless, the monarch unrestrained, aristocracy without a bond of union, without a vital principle; it was to prevent the three elements-monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy-from uniting to form a limited government, towards which almost all the European nations appealed to be inclining. We have already seen that it was not at that time expedient to isolate the people, for their political existence was still feeble and precarious; and it is no less evident that the nobility, as a means of government, ought not to have been left to themselves. This class, possessing no other vital principle than that derived from their titles and privileges, were incapable of resisting the attacks continually aimed at them by the royal power. In spite of themselves, the nobility were under the necessity of yielding to the monarch's will, of abandoning their inaccessible castles, to resort to the sumptuous palaces of kings, and play the part of courtiers. Protestantism crushed the power of the clergy, not only in the countries in which it succeeded in implanting its errors, but also in others. In fact, where it could not fully introduce itself, its ideas, when not in open opposition to the Catholic faith, exercised a certain degree of influence. From that time the power of the clergy lost its principal support in the political influence of the Popes, for whilst kings assumed a tone of greater boldness against the pretensions of the Holy See, the Popes, on their side, that they might give no pretext, no occasion for the declamations of Protestants, were obliged to act with great circumspection in every thing relating to temporal affairs. All this has been regarded as the progress of European civilization,-as one step towards liberty; however, the rapid sketch which I have just given of the political condition of that period, clearly proves that, instead of taking the surest way to the development of representative forms, the road to absolute monarchy was chosen. Protestantism, interested in crushing by all possible means the power of the Popes, exalted that of kings even in spiritual matters. By thus concentrating in their hands the spiritual and temporal powers, it left the throne without any sort of counterpoise. By destroying the hope of obtaining liberty by peaceable means, it led the people to have recourse to force, and opened the crater of those revolutions which have cost modern Europe so many tears. In order that the forms of political liberty should take root and attain to perfection, they were not to be forced prematurely from the atmosphere which gave them birth; for in this atmosphere existed together the monarchical, aristocratical, and popular elements, all strengthened and directed by the Catholic religion; under the influence of this same religion, these elements were being gradually combined, politics were not to be separated from religion. Instead of regarding the clergy as a fatal element, it was important to look upon them as a mediator among all classes and powers, ready to calm the ardor of strife, to place bounds against excess, to prevent the exclusive preponderance of the monarch, the nobility, or the people. Whenever powers and interests of different natures are to be combined, a mediator is essential, or some sort of intervention to prevent violent shocks; if this mediator does not exist in the very nature of the circumstances, recourse must be had to the law for the creation of one. From this it is evident what an evil Protestantism inflicted upon Europe; since its first act was completely to isolate the temporal power, to place it in rivalship and hostility to the spiritual, and to leave no mediator between the monarch and the people. The lay aristocracy at once lost their political influence; for they had now lost their force and bond of union, which 872 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. they derived from their connection with the ecclesiastical aristocracy. When once the nobles were reduced to mere courtiers, the power of the throne was entirely without a counterpoise. I have said it, and I repeat it, that the strengthening of the royal power, even at the expense of the rights and liberties of the lords and of the commons, tended powerfully to the maintenance of public order, and consequently to the progress of civilization; but, at the same time, the extreme preponderance obtained by this power is much to be lamented; and it may be well to reflect, that one of the principal causes of this preponderance was the removal of the clergy from the sphere of politics. At the commencement of the sixteenth century, the question no longer was, whether those numerous castles should be left standing, from the heights of which proud barons gave the law to their vassals, and held themselves justified in despising the ordinances of the monarch; nor whether that long list of communal liberties should be preserved, which had no connection with each other, which were opposed to the pretensions of the great, and at the same time embarrassed the action of the sovereign, by preventing the formation of a central government capable of insuring order, of protecting legitimate interests, of giving an impulse to the movement of civilization, which had everywhere commenced with so much activity. This was no longer the question; on all sides the castles were being levelled, the great lords were descending from their fortresses, and becoming more humane towards the people; they were giving up their exactions, and beginning to show respect to the power of the monarch; and the commons, obliged to submit to an amalgamation of the multitude of petty states, to form extensive monarchies, were forced to part with so much of their rights and liberties as was opposed to the system of general centralization. The question was, to discover whether there existed any means of limiting power, and yet securing to the people the benefits of its centralization and augmentation; whether it was possible, without embarrassing or weakening the action of power, to secure to the people a reasonable amount of influence over the progress of affairs, and, above all, the right they had already acquired of watching over the public revenues. That is, at once to prevent the sanguinary horrors of revolutions, and the abuses and disorders of court favorites. The people alone were incapable of preserving this influence, unless they had been furnished with a knowledge of the public affairs; an indispensable resource in such a case, but of which they were in general completely destitute. I do not mean to deny the existence of a certain kind of knowledge amongst the commons; but we must bear in mind that the term public affairs had acquired an extensive signification; for it was not merely applied to a municipality or a province; centralization becoming everywhere more general and triumphant, caused this term to be applied to whole kingdoms, not merely considered as isolated, but in the whole of their relations with other nations. From that time European civilization began to assume that character of generality, which still distinguishes it: from that time, to understand aright the private affairs of any one kingdom, it was necessary to look abroad over the whole of Europe, sometimes over the whole world. Men capable of such elevated views could not be very common in society; moreover, as the most exalted part of society was attracted by the splendor of the throne of the monarch, a focus of intelligence was sure to be formed there, with exclusive pretensions to the government. Compare with this centre of action and intelligence, the people alone, still weak and ignorant, and the result may be easily guessed. Weakness and ignorance never prevailed over force and intelligence. But, what remedy was there for this difficulty? The preservation of the Catholic religion all over Europe, and consequently the influence of the clergy; for it is well known that the clergy were still considered at this epoch.as the centre of learning. Those who have extolled Protestantism for having weakened the influence of PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITI CATHOLICITY. 373 the Catholic clergy, have not sufficiently reflected upon the nature of that influence. It would have been difficult to discover at that epoch a class of citizens connected with the three elements of power by common interests with each, and yet not exclusively allied to any. Monarchy had nothing to fear from the clergy. In fact, how can we imagine that the ministers of a religion regarding power as an emanation from Heaven would declare themselves the enemies of royal power, which was acknowledged to be at the head of all others? Neither had the aristocracy any thing to apprehend on the part of the clergy, so long as they did not outstep the bounds of reason. The titles, by virtue of which they claimed the possession of riches, their rights to a certain degree of consideration and of precedence were not likely to be combated by a class whose principles and interests were necessarily favorable to every thing within the bounds of reason, of justice, and of the laws. The democracy, comprising the generality of the people, found support and most generous protection in the Church. How could the Church, which had labored so much to emancipate them from the ancient slavery, and at a later period from feudal chains, declare herself the enemy of a class which might be considered as her creature? If the people experienced an amelioration in their civil condition, it was owing to the efforts of the clergy; if they acquired political influence, it was owing to the amelioration of their condition-another favor obtained through the influence of the clergy; and if the clergy had any where a sure support, it was natural to look for it in that popular class which, continually in contact with them, received from them their inspirations and instructions. Besides, the Church selected her members indiscriminately from all classes, To elevate a man to the sacred ministry she required neither titles of nobility nor riches, and this alone was sufficient to insure intimate relations between the clergy and the people, and to prevent the latter from regarding them with aversion and estrangement. Hence the clergy, united to all classes, were an element perfectly adapted to prevent the exclusive preporderance of any of these classes, to maintain all social elements in a certain gentle and productive fermentation, which in time would have produced and matured a natural combination. I do not mean to assert that there would not have arisen differences, disputes, perhaps conflicts, inevitable occurrences so long as men shall be men; but who does not see that the terrible effusion of blood in the wars of Germany, in the revolutions of England and France, would have been impossible? It will be said, perhaps, that the spirit of European civilization necessarily tended to diminish the extreme inequality of classes; I grant it, and will even add, that this tendency was conformable to the principles and maxims of the Christian religion, continually reminding men of their equality before God, of their common origin and destination, of the emptiness of honors and riches, and proclaiming that virtue is the only thing solid upon earth, the only thing capable of rendering us pleasing in the eyes of God. But to reform is not to destroy to cure the disease, we must not kill the patient. It was deemed better to overthrow at one blow what might have been corrected by legal means; European civilization having been corrupted by the fatal innovations of the sixteenth century, legitimate authority having been disregarded even in matters within its exclusive sphere, its mild and beneficent action has been replaced by the disastrous expedients of violence. Three centuries of calamity have more or less opened the eyes of nations, by teaching them how perilous it is, even for the success of an enterprise, to confide it to the cruel hazard of the employment of force; but it is probable that'if Protestantism, like an apple of discord, had not been thrown into the middle of Europe, all these great social and political questions would, at the present time, be much nearer being solved in a safe, peaceable, and certain manner, if, indeed, they had not been already solved long since. (38) 2G 374 CHAPTER LXV. POLITICAL DOCTRINES BEFORE THE APPEARANCE OF PROTESTANTISM. IN matters appertaining to representative government, modern political science boasts of its great progress: we hear it continually asserting that the school in which the deputies of the Constituent Assembly imbibed their lessons was totally ignorant of political constitutions. Now when we compare the doctrines of the predominating school of the present day with those of the preceding school, what difference do we discover between them? On what points do they differ? Where is this boasted progress? The school of the eighteenth century said: " The king is the natural enemy of the people; his power must either be totally destroyed, or at least so far restrained and limited, that he may only appear with his hands tied on the summit of the social edifice, merely invested with the faculty of approving the measures of the representatives of the people." And what says the modern school, which boasts of its progress, of the advantage it has derived from experience, and of having hit the exact point marked out by reason and good sense? "Monarchy," says this school, "is essential to the great European nations; the attempts at republicanism made in America, whatever may be their results, require, as yet, the test of time; besides, they were made under circumstances very different from those in which we are placed, and consequentl:, are not to be imitated by us. The king should not be regarded as the enemy of the people, but as their father; instead of presenting him to public view with his hands tied, he should be represented surrounded with power, grandeur, and even with majesty and pomp; without which it is impossible for the throne to fulfil the high functions with which it is invested. The king should be inviolable-not nominally, but really and effectually, so that his power cannot, under any pretext, be attacked. He should be placed in a sphere beyond the whirlwind of passion and party, like a tutelar divinity, a stranger to mean views and base passions; he ought to be, as it were, the representative of reason and justice." " Fools," exclaims this school to its adversaries, "can you not see that it would be better to have no king at all than such a one as you would have? Your king would always be an enemy to the constitution, for he would find this constitution always attacking, embarrassing, restricting, and humiliating him." We will now compare this progress with the doctrines predominating in Europe long before the appearance of Protestantism. This comparison will enable us to show'clearly that every thing reasonable, just, and useful, contained in these doctrines, was already known and generally propagated in Europe when society was under the exclusive influence of the Catholic Church. A king is essential, says the modern school; and, thanks to the influence of the Catholic religion, all the great nations of Europe had a king: the king m,9ust not be regarded as the enemy, but as the father of the people; and he was already called the father of the people: the power of the king should be great; that power was great: the king should be inviolable, his person sacred; his person was sacred, and his prerogative insured to him by the Church from the earliest ages, in an august and solemn ceremony, that of his coronation. " The people are supreme," said the school of the last century; " the law is the expression of the general will, the representatives of the people are alone, therefore, invested with legislative faculties; the monarch cannot resist this will. The laws are submitted to his sanction through mere formality; if the king refuses this sanction, the laws are to undergo another examination; but if the will of the representatives of the people still remains the same, it shali PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 375 be raised to the dignity of law; and the monarch who, by the refusal of his sanction, shall show that he regards this general will as detrimental to the public good, shall be compelled, at the expense of his dignity and independence, to give effect to it." In reply to this, the modern school says: " The supremacy of the people is either unmeaning, or has a dangerous sense; the law should not be the expression of will, but of reason; mere will does not, constitute a law; for this purpose, reason, justice, and public expediency are required." These ideas were general long before the sixteenth century, not only amongst educated men, but even among the most simple and ignorant classes. A doctor of the thirteenth century admirably expressed it in his habitual laconic language: "It is a rule dictated by reason, and having the common weal for its aim." "Would you," continued the modern school, "have royal power a truth, you must assign it the first place among legislative powers; you must entrust it with an absolute veto. In the ancient cortes, in the ancient states-general and parliaments, the king did occupy this place among the legislative powers.; nothing was done without his consent; he possessed an absolute veto." "Away with classes!" exclaims the Constituent Assembly; "away with distinctions! The king face to face with the people, directly and immediately; the rest is an attempt against imprescriptible rights." " You are rash," replies the modern school; " if there are no distinctions, they must be created. If there are not in society classes'forming in themselves a second legislative body a mediator between the king and the people, there must be artificial ones; through the medium of the law must be created what does not exist in society; if reality is wanting, recourse must be had to fiction." Now these classes existed in ancient society, they took part in public affairs, they were organized as active instruments, they formed the first legislative bodies. I ask now, whether this parallel does not show, as clear as the light of day, that what is now termed progress in matters of government, is, in fact, a true return towards what was every where taught and practised under the influence of the Catholic religion before the appearance of Protestantism? In addressing myself to men endowed with the least intelligence upon social and political questions, I may assuredly dispense with the differences which must necessarily result from the two epochs. I grant that the course of events would of itself have caused important modifications; political institutions were to be accommodated to the fresh wants to be satisfied. But I maintain, at the same time, that, so far as ciirenustanzes peixtted, i rwqpeau civilization was advancing on the right road to a better state, containing within itself the means necessary for reforming without destroying. But for this purpose a spontaneous development of events was necessary to bear in mind that the mere action of man is of little avail, that sudden attempts are dangerous; that the great productions of society are like those of nature, both requiring an indispensable element, time. There is one fact which appears to me to have been too little reflected upon, although including the explanation of some strange phenomena of the last three centuries. This fact is, that Protestantism has prevented civilization from becoming homogeneous, in spite of a strong tendency urging all the nations of Europe to homogeneity. The civilization of the nations without doubt receives its nature and its characteristics from the principles that have given it life and movement; now these principles being the same, or very nearly so, in all the nations of Europe, these nations must have borne a close resemblance to each other. History and philosophy agree on this point; therefore, so long as the European nations did not receive the inculcation of any germ of division, their civil and political institutions were developed with a very remarkable simiiarity. True, certain differences were observable in them, which were the inevitable consequences of a variety of circumstances; but we see that they 376 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. were becoming more and more alike and forming Europe into one vast whole,:f which we can scarcely form a correct idea, accustomed as we are to ideas of disunion. This homogeneity would have arrived at its perfection through the effect of the rapidity which the increase and prosperity of commerce and the arts gave to intellectual and material communications; the art of printing would have contributed to it more than anything else, for the ebb and flow of ideas would have dispersed the inequalities separating the nations one from another. But unfortunately, Protestantism appeared and separated the European people into two great families, which, since their division, have professed a mortal hatred towards each other. This hatred has been the cause of furious wars, in which torrents of blood have been shed. One thing yet more fatal than these catastrophies was the germ of civil, political, and literary schism, introduced into the bosom of Europe by the absence of religious unity. Civil and political institutions, and all the branches of learning, had appeared and prospered in Europe under the influence of religion; the schism was religious; it affected even the root, and extended to the branches. Thus arose among the various nations those brazen walls which kept them separate; the spirit of suspicion and mistrust was everywhere spread; things which before would have been deemed innocent or without importance, from that time were looked upon as eminently dangerous. What uneasiness, disquietude, and agitation must have been the result of these fatal complications! We may say that in this detestable germ is contained the history of the calamities with which Europe was afflicted during the last three centuries. To what may we attribute the Anabaptist wars in Germany, those of the empire, and the Thirty-years war; those of the Huguenots in France, and the bloody scenes of the League; and that profound source of division, that uninterrupted series of discord, which beginning with the Huguenots, was continued by the Jansenists, and then by philosophers, termi-'nating in the. Convention? Had England not contained in her bosom that nest of sects engendered by Protestantism, would she have had to suffer the disasters of a revolution which lasted so many years? Had Henry VIII. not seceded from the Catholic Church, Great Britain would not have passed twothirds of the sixteenth century in the most atrocious religious persecutions, and under the most brutal despotism; she would not have been drowned during the greater part of the seventeenth in torrents of blood, shed by sectarian fana. ticism. Had it not been for Protestantism, would England have been in'the fatal position in which she is placed by the Irish question, scarcely leaving her a choice between a dismemberment of the empire and a terrible revolution? Would not nations of brethren have found the means of coming to an amicable understanding, if, during the last three centuries, religious discords had not separated them by a lake of blood? Those offensive and defensive confederations between nation and nation, which divided Europe into two parties, as inimical to each other as the Christians to the Mussulmans, that traditional hatred between the North and the South, that profound separation between Protestant and Catholic Germany, between Spain and England, between that country and France, were sure to have an extraordinary effect in retarding communications between European nations; and what would have been obtained much sooner by moral means, could only be obtained by material ones. Steam tends to convert Europe into one.vast city; if men who were one day to live under the same roof hated one another for three centuries, what was the cause of it? If people's hearts had been united long before in mutual affection, would not the happy moment in which they were to join hands have been hastened? 377 CHAPTER LXVI. POLITICAL DOCTRINES IN SPAIN. MY explanation of this matter would be incomplete, were I to leave the fol. lowing difficulty unresolved: " In Spain, Catholicity has prevailed exclusively, and under it an absolute monarchy was established, a sufficient indication that Catholic doctrines are inimical to political liberty." The great majority of men never look deeply into the real nature of things, nor pay due attention to the true meaning of words. Present them with something in strong relief that will make a vivid impression on their imagination, and they take facts just as they appear at the first glance, thoughtlessly confounding causality with coincidence. It cannot be denied that the empire of.the Catholic religion coincided in Spain with the final preponderance of absolute monarchy; but the question is, Was the Catholic religion the true cause of this preponderance? Was it she that overturned the ancient cortes, to establish the throne of absolute monarchs on the ruins of popular institutions? Before we commence our examination into the cause that destroyed the influence of the nation on public affairs, it may be well to remind the reader that in Denmark, Sweden, and Germany, absolutism was established and upheld in juxtaposition with Protestantism. Hence the argument of coincidence is very little worth, as, owing to the exact identity of circumstances in the two cases, it could just as well be proved that Protestantism leads to absolutism. I will just observe here, that in my endeavors to demonstrate in the foregoing chapters that the pseudo-Reformation tended to the overthrow of political liberty, I have not rested my arguments upon coincidences only, however careful I may have been to point them out to the reader. I have said that Protestantism, by diffusing dissolvent doctrines, had occasioned a necessity for an extension of temporal power; that by destroying the political influence of the clergy and the Popes, it had destroyed the equilibrium between the social classes, left no counterpoise to the throne, and further augmented the power of the monarch, by granting him ecclesiastical supremacy in Protestant countries, and exaggerating his prerogatives in Catholic nations. But we will dismiss these general considerations, and fix our attention upon Spain. This nation has the misfortune to be one of those that are least known; its history is not properly studied, nor are sound views taken of its present condition. Its troubles, its rebellions, its civil wars, proclaim that it has not yet received its true system of government, which proves that the nation to be governed is but imperfectly understood. Its history is, if possible, still less perfectly understood. The present influence of events already very remote, works secretly and almost imperceptibly; and hence the eye of the observer is satisfied with a superficial view of affairs, and he forms his opinions too hastily-opinions which too often, in consequence, take the place of facts and reality. In treating of the causes that have deprived Spain of her political liberty, almost all authors fix their attention principally or exclusively upon Castile, giving monarchs infinitely more credit for sagacity than the course of events would seem to justify. They generally select the war of the Communeros as their point of view, and, according to certain writers, but for the defeat at Villalar, the liberties of Spain would have been forever secure. I admit that the war of the Communeros affords an excellent point of view for the study of this matter; in fact, the field of Villalar was in some measure witness to the conclusion of the drama. Castile should be regarded as the centre of events; and it is here that the Spanish monarchs gave proof of great sagacity in the manner in which they brought the enterprise to -a close. Nevertheless, I do not deem it just to give an exclusive preference to one 48 2 G2 378 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. of these considerations, and it does appeal to me that the real state of the question is generally misconceived: effects are taken for causes, accessories for principals; In my opinion, the ruin of free institutions resulted from the following causes:-1st, the premature and immoderately extensive development of these institutions; 2dly, the formation of the Spanish nation out of a successive reunion of very heterogeneous parts, all possessing institutions extremely popular; 3dly, the establishment of the centre of power in the middle of the provinces where these forms were most restricted, and where the authority of the crown was the greatest; 4thly, the extreme abundance of wealth, the power and the splendor which the Spanish people saw everywhere around them, and which lulled them to sleep in the arms of prosperity; 5thly, the exclusively military position of the Spanish monarchs, whose armies were everywhere victorious, their military power and prestige being at their height precisely at the critical time when the quarrel had to be decided. I will take a rapid view of these causes, although the nature of this work does not permit me to devote to them the space which the gravity and importance of the subject demand. The reader will pardon me this political digression on account of the close connection existing between this subject and the religious question. As regards popular forms of government. Spain has been in advance of all monarchical nations. This is an indubitable fact. In Spain, these forms received a premature and extreme development; and this contributed to their ruin, as a child sickens and dies, if, in its tender years, its growth is too rapid, or its intellect too precocious. This active spirit of liberty, this multitude of fueros and of privileges, these impediments everywhere placed in the way of power, checking the rapidity and energy of its actiop-this great development of the popular element, in its very nature restless and turbulent, existing simultaneously with the wealth, the power, and the pride of the aristocracy, very naturally gave rise to many commotions. Elements so numerous, so various, and so opposite to each other, which, moreover, had not time to be combined so as to form a peaceable and harmonious whole, were not likely to work tranquilly together. Order is the prime necessity of society; it is essential to the growth of the ideas, the manners, and the laws of a nation. Wherever there exists a germ of continual disorder, how deep soever it may have struck its roots, it is sure to be extirpated, or at least crushed, so as no longer to keep public tranquillity in perpetual danger. The municipal and political organization of Spain had this inconvenience, and hence an imperative necessity for its modification. But the ideas and the manners of the time were such, that matters could not be expected to stop at a simple modification. Tlhe system of constituencies, which so easily creates numerous assemblies, either to enact new fundamental codes or to reform the old ones, was not then understood as it is in our days; neither were men's ideas at that time so generalized as to place them above all that exclusively and particularly relates to a people, at a point of elevation whence they could no longer observe every petty local object, but had their attention wholly engrossed by mankind, society, the nation, or the government. It was not so at that time: a charter of liberty granted by a king to a city or a town; an immunity wrested from a feudal lord by his armed vassals; some privilege obtained in reward of warlike achievements, or sometimes granted as a recompense for the bravery of a man's ancestors; a concession to the cortes, made by the monarch in exchange for the grant of a contribution, or, as it was then termed, of a service,-a law or custom, the antiquity of which lay hidden in the depths of the past, or confounded with the infancy of monarchy: such, to give a few instances, were the titles of which they were proud, and which they maintained with jealous ardor Liberty now-a-days is more vague, and sometimes less positive, owing to the PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 379 generalization and elevation which men's ideas have assumed; but then it is far less liable to destruction. Speaking a language well understood by the people, and appearing as the common cause of all nations, it awakens universal sympathies, and is in a position to found more extensive associations as a guarantee against the attacks of power. The words liberty, equality, rights of man, intervention of the people in public affairs, ministerial responsibility, public opinion, liberty of the press, toleration, and other similar ones, do undoubtedly contain a great diversity of meanings, which it would be difficult to determine and to classify when we come to make a specific application of them; and yet these words present to the mind certain ideas which, although complicated and confused, have a false appearance of clearness and simplicity. On the other hand, these words represent certain striking objects that dazzle the mind by their vivid and flattering colors, and hence they cannot be uttered without exciting a lively interest; they are understood by the masses, and hence every self-constituted champion of the ideas they convey is at once regarded as a defender of the rights of all mankind. But imagine yourself living among the people of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, and your position will be found very different. Take for your subject the franchises of Catalonia or of Castile, and address yourself to the Aragonese, who were so intractable on the subject of theirfueros, and you will produce no effect-will not succeed in awakening either their zeal or their interest; a charter that does not contain the name of one of their towns or cities is, in their eyes, a thing of no importance, and foreign to their wishes. This inconvenience, originating in the ideas of the times, which were naturally confined to local circumstances, became very great in Spain, where, under the same sceptre, there was formed an amalgamation of people differing most widely in their manners, in their municipal and political organization, and divided, moreover, by rivalries and animosities. In such a state of things it was comparatively easy to curtail the liberties of one province without giving umbrage to the others, or exciting their apprehensions for their own liberties. If, at the period of the insurrections of the Communeros in Castile against Charles V., there had existed that communication of ideas and sentiments, and those lively sympathies, which at the present time unite people together, the defeat of Villalar would have been a simple defeat and nothing more; the cry of alarm, resounding throughout Aragon and Castile, would certainly have given more trouble to the young and ill-advised monarch. But such was not the case; all the efforts of the people were isolated, and consequently barren of results. The royal power, proceeding upon a fixed and steady plan, was able to beat down piecemeal these scattered forces, and the result was not doubtful. In 1521, Padilla, Bravo, and Maldonado perished on the scaffold; in 1591, D. Diego de Heredia, D. Juan de Luna, and the Justiciary himself, D. Antonio de Lanuza, met the same fate; when, in 1640, the Catalonians rose in insurrection for the defence of their rights, notwithstanding the manifestos they issued to attract supporters, they found no one to assist them. There were then no flying sheets, coming every morning to fix the attention of the people upon all sorts of questions, and to stir up alarm at the least appearance of danger to their liberties. The people, warmly attached to their customs and usages, satisfied with the nominal confirmations which their monarchs were daily giving to their fieros, proud also of the respect shown to their ancient liberties, were little aware that they were confronted by a sagacious adversary, who never resorted to force but to effect a decisive blow, yet constantly held his powerful arm ready to crush them. An attentive study of the history of Spain will show that the concentration of the whole governing power in the hands of the monarch, to the exclusion, as far as was possible, of popular influence, dates from the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella. Nor is this surprising; for there was then a greater 880 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. necessity for such a course, and it could be more easily adopted. There was a greater necessity; for, from that time, the action of government began to extend from one common center over the whole of Spain, the various portions of which differed so widely in their laws, their manners, and their customs; hence the.central action naturally felt more sensibly the embarrassment occasioned by so great a diversity of cortes, of municipalities, of codes, and of privileges; and, as every government wishes its action to be rapid and efficacious, the idea of simplifying, uniting, and centralizing their power naturally took possession of the kings of Spain. It is, in fact, easy to understand that a monarch at the head of numerous armies, with magnificent fleets at his disposal, who had, on a hundred occasions, humbled his most powerful foes, and won the respect of foreign nations, would n'ot like to be continually going to preside over the cortes in Castile, in Aragon, in Valencia, and in Catalonia. It would undoubtedly cost him dear to be constantly repeating the oath binding him to protect the rights and liberties of his subjects, and listening to the perpetual strain re-echoed in his ears by the procuradorcs of Castile, and the brazos of Aragon, Valencia, and Catalonia. It was hard for him to be obliged humbly to solicit from the cortes assistance for the expenses of the state, and particularly for almost continual wars. If he submitted to this, it was only from the dread of those resolute men, real lions in the battle-field when fighting in defence of their religion, their country, and their king, and who would have fought with no less intrepidity in their streets and houses, had an attempt been made to despoil them of those rights and franchises which they inherited from their forefathers. The union of the crowns of Aragon and Castile alone so far prepared the way for the ruin of popular institutions, that it followed almost necessarily. From that time, in fact, the throne had obtained too great a preponderance for the fueros of the kingdoms recently united to oppose it with success. To imagine the existence at that period of a political power capable of resisting the crown, we must suppose all the assemblies held from time to time in the different kingdoms under the name of cortes united into one grand national representative body, with a power analogous to that of the king; we must suppose this central assembly actuated by a zeal equal to that of the ancient assemblies for the preservation of theirfueros and privileges, ready to sacrifice all their rivalries to the public good, and advancing towards their object with a firm step, in one compact mass, and never giving an advantage to their adversary. In other words, we must suppose what was utterly impossible at that period; impossible, on account of the ideas, the habits, and the rivalries of the people; impossible, at a time when the people were incapable of comprehending the question in so lofty a sense; impossible, owing to the resistance which it would have met with from the monarchs; to the embarrassment and complication, arising from the municipal, social, and political organization. In a word, it was something impossible to effect or even to conceive. Every circumstance was in favor of the aggrandizement of the royal power. The monarch being no longer merely king of Aragon or of Castile, but of Spain, the ancient kingdoms dwindled into insignificance before the majesty and the splendor of the throne, and sank by degrees to the rank which alone suited them, that of provinces. From that moment the action of the monarch became more extensive and complicated, and consequently he could not come so frequently into contact with his vassals. The celebration of the cortes in each of the recently united kingdoms, would have occasioned long delays; for the king was oftentimes engaged at another part of the empire. When sedition was to be chastised, abuses to be checked, or excesses to be repressed, he was no longer obliged to have recourse to the forces of the particular kingdom in which these things occurred, as he could employ the arms of Castile to subdue insur PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATIIOLICITY. 381 rection in the kingdom of Aragon, and those of Aragon to put down the rebels of Castile. Grenada lay at his feet; Italy yielded to one of his victorious captains; in his fleet was Columbus, who had just discovered a new world; under these circumstances, it was in vain to listen for the murmurs of the cortes and of ayuntanientos,-these were no longer heard, they had totally disappeared. Had the national manners had a peaceable tendency, had not Spain been habituated to war, democratic institutions would probably have been preserved with less difficulty. Had the attention of the people been fixed exclusively upon their municipal and political affairs, they would have better understood their real interests; kings themselves would not have been so ready to rush into war, and the throne would in some degree have lost the prestige it obtained from the splendor and success of its armies; the administration would not have been imbued with that blunt harshness for which military habits are always more or less remarkable; and the ancientfueros would thus have more easily retained some consideration. But precisely at that period Spain was the most warlike nation in the world; it was in its element on the battle-field; seven centuries of combats had made it a nation of soldiers. Its recent victories over the Moors; the exploits of its armies in Italy; the discoveries of Columbus; every thing, in fine, contributed to its exaltation, and to inspire it with that spirit of chivalry which, for so long a time, was one of its distinguishing characteristics. It was necessary for the king to be a captain; and he was certain to captivate the minds of Spaniards, so long as he won renown by brilliant feats of arms. Now, arms are the bane of popular institutions. After a victory on the field of.battle, the order and discipline of the camp are usually transferred to the city. From the time of Ferdinand and Isabella, the throne rose to such a height of power that liberal institutions were almost lost sight of. The people and the grandees, it is true, re-appeared upon the scene after the death of Isabella; but this was entirely owing to the misunderstanding between Ferdinand the Catholic and Philip le Bel, which impaired the unity, and consequently the strength of the throne; and hence, as soon as these circumstances disappeared, the throne again resumed its full preponderance, and that not only during the last days of Ferdinand, but even under the regency of Ximenes. The men of Castile, exasperated by the excesses of the Flemish, and encouraged perhaps by the hope, that the rule of a young monarch would be, as it usually is, only feeble, again raised their voices; their remonstrances and complaints speedily ended in commotions and in open insurrection. Notwithstanding many circumstances highly favorable to the Communeros, and the probability that their conduct would be followed by all the provinces of the monarchy, we find that the insurrection, although considerable, did not assume either the importance or extent of a national movement; a great portion of the Peninsula preserved a strict neutrality, and the rest inclined to the cause of monarchy. If I am not mistaken, this fact indicates that the throne had already obtained an immense prestige, and was regarded as the highest and most powerful institution. The entire reign of Charles V. was extremely well calculated to perfect this beginning. Commenced under the auspices of the battle of Villalar, this reign continued through an uninterrupted series of wars, in which the treasures and the blood of Spain were spent with incredible profusion in all the countries of Europe, Africa, and America. The nation was not allowed time even to think of its affairs: almost always deprived of the presence of its king, it had become a province at the diposal of the Emperor of Germany, the ruler of Europe, True, the cortes of 1538 boldly gave Charles a severe lecture instead of the succor he demanded. But it was already too late; the clergy and the nobility were expelled from the cortes, and the representation of Jastile.was 882 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. restricted for the future to the procuradores alone; that is, it was doomed to be no more than the shadow of what it had been-a mere instrument of the royal will. Much has been said against Philip II.; but, in my opinion, this monarch merely kept his place, and allowed things to take their natural course. The crisis was already past; the question already decided; the Spanish nation could not regain its lost influence, save by the regenerating action of centuries. Still, we must not imagine that absolute power was so fully and completely established as to leave not a vestige of ancient liberty; but this liberty could do nothing from its asylum in Aragon and Catalonia against the giant that held it in check from the midst of a country entirely subject to his sway, from the capital of Castile. The monarchs might probably, by one bold and heavy blow, have struck down every thing that opposed them; but whatever probabilities of success they had in the vast means at their disposal, they were very careful not to make the attempt, but left the inhabitants of Navarre, the sub. jects of the crown of Aragon, in the tranquil enjoyment of their franchises, rights, and privileges. At the same time, they were careful to prevent the contagion spreading to the other provinces. By means of partial attacks, and more especially by leading the people to allow their ancient liberties to fall into desuetude, they gradually diminished their zeal for them, and insensibly brought them to a habit of tamely bending under the action of a central power. (39) CHAPTER LXVII. POLITICAL LIBERTY AND RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE. IN the sketch I have here drawn, the rigorous accuracy of which no one can question, we have not discovered any thing like oppression in Catholicity, nor any alliance between the clergy and the throne for the destruction of liberty: what we have discovered is merely the regular and natural order of things,a successive development of events contained in each other, as the plant is contained in the germ. As for the Inquisition, I think I have said enough respecting it in the chapters that treat of it: in this place I will merely observe. that it was not a political instrument in the hands of kings, ready to be used at their beck. Religion was its object; and as we have seen, far from losing sight of this object to suit the wishes of the sovereign, it unhesitatingly condemned the doctrines that would have unjustly extended the powers of the monarch. Shall I be told, that the Inquisition was in its very nature intolerant, and consequently opposed to the growth of liberty? I answer, that toleration, as now understood, had at that time no existence in any European country. Besides, it was under the direct and full influence of religious intolerance that the people were emancipated, municipalities organized, the system of large representative assemblies established, which, under different names, and more or less directly, interfered in public affairs. Men's ideas were not yet so far perverted as to lead them to believe that religion was favorable and conducive to the oppression of the people; on the contrary, we observe in the hearts of these people a vehement desire for liberty and progress, whilst at the same time they clung with enthusiasm to a faith, in the sight of which it appeared to them just and salutary to refuse toleration to any doctrine at variance with the teaching of the Church of Rome. Unity of faith does not fetter the people-does not impede their movements in any direction-as well, indeed, might it be said, that the mariner is fettered by the compass that guides him in safety through the wide expanse of waters. Was the PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 383 ancient unity of European civilization wanting in grandeur, in variety, or in beauty? Did Catholic unity, presiding over the destinies of society, arrest its progress, even in the ages of barbarism? Let us fix our eyes upon the grand and delightful spectacle exhibited in the centuries preceding the sixteenth, and pause a moment to reflect; we shall all the better understand in what manner rotestantism has given a wrong direction to the course of civilization. The immense agitation occasioned by the gigantic enterprise of the Crusades shows in what a state of fermentation were the elements deposited in the bosom of society. The shock excited them to activity-union augmented their force -every where, and in every sense, was to be seen a vigorous and active movement, a sure presage of the high degree of civilization and refinement which Europe was about to attain. The arts and sciences, as if called into life by some powerful voice, reappeared, loudly asserting their claim to protection and an honorable reception. On the feudal castles, those heirlooms of the manners of the period of conquest, a ray of light suddenly gleamed, that illuminated with the rapidity of lightning all climates and all people. Those masses of men, who had hitherto bent in painful toil for the benefit of their masters, now lifted up their heads, and, with bold hearts and enfranchised lips, demanded a share in social advantages. Addressing each other with a look of intelligence, they combined together, and insisted in common that the law should be substituted for caprice. Then towns sprang up, increased in size and importance, and were surrounded with ramparts; municipal institutions arose, and began to develop themselves; kings, till then the sport of the pride, ambition:r stubbornness of the feudal lords, seized upon an opportunity so favorable, and made common cause with the people. Threatened with destruction, feudalism entered valiantly into the contest, but in vain; and, restrained by a power even more irresistible than the weapons of its adversaries, and, as if oppressed by the air it breathed, it felt its action impeded, its energies enfeebled, and, despairing of victory, it gave itself up to the enjoyment to be found in the patronage of the arts. To the coat of mail now succeeded elegance of dress; to the powerful shield, the pompous escutcheon; to the bearing and address of the warrior, the manners of the courtier:-thus was the whole power of feudalism undermined; the popular element was left completely at liberty to develop itself; and the powers of monarchs became every day more extensive. Royalty thus strengthened, municipal institutions in full vigor,. and feudalism undermined, the remnants of barbarism and oppression still existing in the laws fell one by one beneath the attacks of so many adversaries; and, for the first time in the world's history, there was seen a considerable number of great nations presenting the peaceful spectacle of many millions of men living in social union, and enjoying together the rights of men and of citizens. Until this period, public tranquillity, and even the very existence of society, had to be secured by carefully excluding from the working of the political machine a great number of individuals by means of slavery-a system that proved at once the intrinsic inferiority and weakness of the governments of antiquity. The Christian religion, with the courage inspired by the consciousness of strength, and with an ardent love for humanity, had never doubted that she held in her hands other means of re straining men than a recourse to degradation and violence, and had, in fact, resolved the problem in a manner the most noble rnd generous. She had said to society: " Dost thou dread this immense multitude, that have no sufficient titles to thy confidence? I will stand security for them. Thou enslavest them; thou puttest chains around their necks; I will subdue their hearts. Leave them free; and this multitude, before which thou tremblest as before a herd of wild beasts, will become a class of men serviceable to themselves and to thee." This voice had been heard, and all men were freed from the yoke of slavery 884 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. all entered upon this noble struggle, which was to place society in equilibrium, without destroying or shaking its foundations. We have'already said above, that there existed powerful adversaries. Shocks more or less violent were inevitable; but there was no cause for anticipating any serious catastrophe, unless some fatal combination of circumstances arose to overthrow the only power capable of moderating the inflamed, and sometimes exasperated, passions of men-to impose silence upon that powerful voice, ever ready to say to the combatants, That is enough. That voice-the voice of Christianity-might have been heard with greater or less docility; but it would always have sufficed to calm down the fury of the passions, to moderate the fierceness of their conflicts, and thus to prevent scenes of bloodshed. If we take a glance at Europe at the end of the fifteenth and beginning of the sixteenth centuries, with a view to discover the social elements, whose struggle seemed likely to disturb public tranquillity, we shall find the power of the throne already far superior to that of the lords and of the people; we shall see it endeavoring to please its rivals, lending its aid to one for the subjugation of the others: but already this power was evidently indestructible. Held more or less in check by the proud remnants of feudalism, and by the ever-growing and encroaching power of the people, monarchy nevertheless maintained its position as a central force for the protection of society against violence and excess. This tendency was so strong, that we every where meet with the same phenomenon, manifested with more or less distinctness, and with characters of greater or less identity. The nations of Europe were great both in numbers and extent; the abolition of slavery gave a sanction to the prin ciple, that man ought to live free in the midst of society, enjoying its most essential advantages, and with sufficient room to enable him to take a more or less elevated rank, according to the means he employs to gain it. Thus society had said to each individual: " I acknowledge thee as a man and a citizen; from this moment I guarantee to thee the possession of these titles.' If thou desirest to lead a quiet life in the bosom of thy family-labor and be careful; no one shall wrest from thee the rewards of thy labors, nor trammel the free exercise of thy faculties. Dost thou aspire to the possession of wealth-consider how others have acquired it, and display a similar activity and intelligence. Art thou ambitious of fame, of rising to an elevated rank, to splendid titles-the sciences and the military profession are before thee. If thou hast inherited an illustrious name, thou mayest still increase its lustre; if thou art not in possession of such a name, thou art free to acquire one." Such was the condition of the social problem at the end of the fifteenth century. Every thing was made public, all the great means of action were openly developing themselves with rapidity; the art of printing already transmitted men's thoughts from one end of the world to the other with the speed of lightning, and insured their preservation for the benefit of future generations. The frequent intercourse between nations, the revival of literature and the arts, the cultivation of the sciences, the inclination for travelling and commerce, the discovery of a new passage to the East Indies, the discovery of America, the preference given to political negotiations for effecting the arrangements of international rclations,-every thing combined to give to the minds of men that strong impulse, that shock which at once arouses and develops all their faculties, and gives new life. It is difficult to understand by what process of reasoning, in the face of facts so positive and certain,-facts that stand so prominently forward in every page of history, any man could ever seriously maintain that Protestantism aided human progress. If previous to Luther's reform society had been found stationary, and still submerged in the chaos into which it had been plunged by the irruptions of the barbarians; if the people had not succeeded, previously to that reform, in formling themselves into great PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 385 nations, and in providing themselves with systems of government more or less perfectly organized, but all unquestionably superior to any that had hitherto existed,-the assertion might carry with it a degree of plausibility, or, at all events, it would not stand, as it unfortunately does, in direct opposition to the most authentic and notorious facts. But what, on the contrary, was the actual state of Europe at the time of Luther's appearance? The administration of justice, exercised with more or less perfection, already possessed a highly moral, rational, and equitable system of legislation for the guidance of its decisions; the people had in great part shaken off the yoke of feudalism, and had acquired abundant resources for the preservation and defence of their liberties; the executive had made immense progress, owing to the establishment, extension, and amelioration of municipalities; the royal authority, enlarged, fortified, and consolidated, formed in the midst of society a central force powerful to work good, to prevent evil, to restrain the passions, to preserve the balance of interests, to prevent ruinous social contests, and to watch over the general welfare of society by constant protection and effectual encouragement; in fine, at that period nations were seen to fix a look of great foresight and sagacity on the rock upon which the vessel of society is in danger of being wrecked, whenever the power of royalty is left without any sort of counterpoise. Such was already the condition of Europe before the religious revolution of the sixteenth century. I promptly concede that great progress has been made since that period in all matters of a social, political and administrative nature; but does it follow that this progress is owing to the Protestant Reformation? To prove that it is, it would be necessary to produce two societies absolutely similar in position and circumstances, but separated by a long space of time, that would render all reciprocal influence between them impossible, and subjected, one to the influence of the Catholic, the other to the Protestant principle; then each of the two religions might come forward and say to the world, " This is my work." But it is absurd to compare, as is often done, times so widely different, circumstances so utterly dissimilar and exceptional with ordinary cases; it should also be remembered, that, in every thing, the first step is always the most difficult, and the greatest merit is always due to invention; in a word, after so many other violations of the rules. of logic, our opponents should not obstinately persist in deducing from one single fact all other facts, simply because the latter happen to be posterior to the former, otherwise they will fall under suspicion of insincerity in their search after truth, and of a wish to falsify history. The organization of European society, such as Protestantism found it, was, assuredly not perfect, but it was, at all events, as perfect as was possible. Unless Providence had vouchsafed to govern the world by prodigies, Europe, at this period, could not have attained to a more advantageous position. The elements of progress, of happiness, of civilization and refinement, were in her bosom; they were numerous and powerful; time was developing them by degrees in a manner truly wonderful; and as mournful experience~ is every day lessening the prestige and credit of destructive doctrines, the time is perhaps not far distant, when philosophers, examining dispassionately this period of history, will agree that society had even then received the most fortunate impulse. It will be seen that Protestantism, by giving a wrong direction to the march of society, only precipitated it upon a perilous route, where it has been on the brink of ruin; and would perhaps have been ruined altogether, had not the hand of the Most High been stronger than the feeble arm of man. Protestants boast of having rendered great service to society by having destroyed in some countries, and impaired in others, the power of the Popes. As -regards the Papal supremacy in relation to matters of faith, what 1 have elsewhere said will suffice to demonstrat6 49 2 H 586 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. the disastrous consequences of the exercise of private judgment; as to discipline, I am unwilling to enter upon questions that would indefinitely extend the limits of this work. I will merely ask my opponents, whether they deem it prudent to leave a society co-extensive with the world without a legislator, without a judge, without an arbitrator, without a counsellor, without a chief? Temporal power.-This term has long been the bugbear of kings-the watchword of the anti-Catholic party —a snare into which many upright men have fallen-a butt for the shafts of discontented statesmen, disappointed writers, and snarling canonists; and nothing more natural, seeing that the subject afforded them an opportunity of pouring out their resentments, and of giving currency to their suspicious doctrines, well assured that, by affecting zeal for the power of the monarch, they would find, in case of danger, a ready asylum in the palaces of kings. The present is not the place for the discussion of a question'that has been the subject of so many vehement and learned disputes; and it would be the more inopportune, as, in the existing state of things, assuredly no power apprehends the least temporal usurpation on the part of the Holy See, which, whatever its enemies may say, has evinced at all times, and even humanly speaking, more prudence, tact, patience, and wisdom than any other power upon earth; and amidst the extreme difficulties of modern times, has taken up a position that enables it to yield to the various exigencies of the times without any compromise of its high dignity, without any deviation from its sublime obligations. It is certain that the temporal power of the Popes had risen in the course of time to such a height, that the successor of St. Peter had become a universal counsellor, arbitrator, and judge, from whose sentence it was dangerous to appeal, even in purely political matters. The general movement throughout Europe had somewhat weakened this power; but yet, at the moment when Protestantism made its appearance, it still had such an ascendency over the minds of men, it commanded so much veneration and respect, and was possessed of such vast means for defending its rights, enforcing its pretensions, supporting its decisions, and making its counsels respected, that the most powerful monarchs of Europe considered it a very serious matter to have the Court of Rome opposed to them in any affair whatever; and consequently they eagerly sought on all occasions, to secure its favor and friendship. Rome had thus become a general centre of negotiation, and no affair of importance could escape its influence. Such have been the outcries raised against the colossal power, against this pretended usurpation of rights, that one might suppose the Popes to have been a succession. of deep conspirators, who, by their intrigues and artifices, aimed at nothing short of universal monarchy. As our opponents plume themselves on their spirit of observation and historical analysis, I felt it necessary to observe, that the temporal power of the Popes was strengthened and extended at a time when no other power was as yet really constituted. To call that power usurpation therefore, is not merely an inaccuracy-it is an anachronism. In the general confusion brought upon all European society by the irruptions of the barbarians, in that strange medley of races, laws, manners, and traditions, there remained only one solid foundation for the structure of the edifice of civilization and refinement, only one luminous body to shine upon the chaos, only one element capable of giving life to the germ of regeneration that lay buried in blood-stained ruins-Christianity, predominant over and annihilating the remains of other religions, arose, in this age of desolation, like a solitary column in the center of a ruined city, or like a bright beacon amid darkness. Barbarians, and proud of their triumphs as they were, the conquering people bowed their heads beneath the pastoral staff that governs the flock of Jesus Christ. The spiritual pastors, a body of men quite new to these barbarians, and speaking a lofty and divine language, obtained over the chiefs of the fero PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATIIOLICITY. 387 cious hordes from the north a complete and permanent ascendency, which the course of ages could not destroy. Such was the foundation of the temporal power in the Church; and it will be easily conceived that as the Pope towered above all the other pastors in the ecclesiastical edifice, like a superb cupola above the other parts of a magnificent temple, his temporal power must have risen far higher than that of ordinary bishops; and mutt also have had a deeper, more solid, and more lasting foundation. All the principles of legislation, all the foundations of society, all the elements of intellectual culture, all that remained of the arts and sciences, all was in the hands of religion; and all very naturally sought protection from the pontifical throne, the only.power acting with order, concert, and regularity, and the only one that offered any guarantee for stability and permanence. Wars succeeded to wars, convulsions to convulsions, the forms of society were continually changing; but the one great, general, and dominant fact, the stability and influence of religion, remained still the same: and itis ridiculous in any man to declaim against a phenomenon so natural, so inevitable, and, above all, so advantageous, designating it, " A succession of usurpations of temporal power." Power, ere it can be usurped, must exist; and where, I pray, did temporal power then exist? Was it in kings?-the sport, and frequently the victims of the haughty barons? In the feudal lords?-continually engaged in contests amongst themselves, with kings, and with the people? In fine, was it in the people?-a troop of slaves, who, thanks to the efforts of religion, were slowly working out their freedom? The people, it is true, united against the lordsthey raised their voices to demand protection from the monarch, or to solicit the aid of the Church against the vexations and outrages inflicted on them by both; still, however, they as yet formed but an unorganized embryo of society, without any fixed rule, without government, and without laws. Could we honestly compare modern times with these? Could we apply to these bygone ages restrictions and distinctions of authority that are admissible only in a state of society in which the elements of life and civilization have been developed, in which solid and permanent foundations have been laid, in which, consequently, the functions of social authority could be, and have in effect been, regulated, after a minute analysis of the limits of their respective jurisdictions? To reason otherwise, would be to seek order in chaos, smoothness on the surface of a tempest-tossed ocean. We should not forget, either, a general and unvarying fact, founded on the very nature of things,-a fact, moreover, to which the history of all times and all countries is continually calling our attention, and which has received a'striking confirmation from the revolutions of modern times,-viz. that whenever society is deeply diseased, there is always at hand a principle of life to stay the progress of the malady. A contest takes place-collisions occur one after another-they become more frequent and more violent; but ultimately the principle of order prevails over that of disorder, and continues long afterwards to predominate in society. This principle may be more or less just, more or less rational, more or less violent, more or less adequate to attain its object; but whatever it be in these respects, it always prevails in the end, unless, during the struggle, another, a better and more powerful principle takes its place. Now, in the middle ages, this principle was the Christian Church. She alone could be this principle, for she had truth in her doctrines, justice in her laws, and regularity and prudence in her government. She was the only element of life that existed at this period-the only depository of the grand idea upon which the reorganization of society depended; and this idea was not vague and abstract, but positive and practicable, for it proceeded from the lips of Him whose word calls forth worlds out of nothing, and makes light to shine forth in the midst of darkness. When once the sublime doctrines of the Church had 888 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. penetrated into the heart of society, her pure, fraternal, and consoling morality necessarily influenced its manners. Forms of government also, and systems of legislation were, in like manner, more or less affected by her mild and powerful influence. These are facts-undeniable facts. Now, the Roman Pontiffs were the center of this. happy preponderance which religion so legitimately obtained and so justly deserved; hence it is clear that the power of the Holy See very naturally rose above all other powers. After having contemplated this sublime picture, drawn from the plain and authentic records of history, why dwell on the defects or the vices of some few individuals? Why drag to light the excesses, the errors, the disorders ever incident to humanity? Why maliciously seek out facts through a long succession of obscure ages, collecting them together and placing them in a light most calculated to make an impression, and to mislead the ignorant? - Why, in fine, urge, exaggerate, disfigure, and paint these facts in the darkest possible colors? To do so, is to betray a very shallow understanding of the philosophy of history, a spirit of great partiality, low views, grovelling sentiments, and miserable spleen. It should be loudly proclaimed to the whole world, and a thousand times repeated, that it may never be forgotten, that limits which have no existence cannot be respected-that to create power is not to usurp it-that to make laws is not to violate them-that to reduce to order the chaos in which society is overwhelmed is not to disturb society. Now this was the work of the Church-this is what was done by the Popes. (40) CHAPTER LXVIII. UNITY IN FAITH NOT ADVERSE TO POLITICAL LIBERTY. THE supposed incompatibility of unity in faith with political liberty is an invention of the irreligious philosophy of the last century. Whatever political opinions be adopted, it is of extreme importance that we be on our guard against such a doctrine. We must not forget that the Catholic religion occupies a sphere far above all forms of government-she does not reject from her bosom either the citizen of the United States, or the inhabitant of Russia, but embraces all men with equal tenderness, commanding all to obey the legitimate governments of their respective countries. She considers them all as children of the same father, participators in the same redemption, heirs to the same glory. It is very important to bear in mind that irreligion allies itself to liberty or to despotism, according as its interests incline; lavish of its applause when an infuriated populace are burning temples and massacring the ministers of the altar, it is ever ready to flatter monarchs, to exaggerate their power beyond measure, whenever they win its favor by despoiling the clergy, subverting discipline, and insulting the Pope. Caring little what instruments it employs, provided it accomplishes its work, it is royalist when in a position to sway the minds of kings, to expel the Jesuits from France, from Spain, from Portugal, to pursue them to the four quarters of the globe without allowing them either respite or repose; liberal in the midst of popular assemblies that exact sacrilegious oaths from the clergy, and send into exile or to the scaffold the ministers of religion who remain faithful to their duty. The man who cannot see that what I have advanced is strictly true, must have forgotten history, and paid little attention to very recent occurrences. With religion and morality, all forms of government are good; without them, none can be good. An absolute monarch, imbued with religious ideas, surrounded by counsellors of sound doctrines, and reigning over a people amongst whom the same doctrines prevail, may make his subjects happy, and will be sure PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 889 to do so as far as circumstances of time and place permit. A wicked monarch, or one surrounded by wicked counsellors, will do mischief in proportion to the extent of his powers; he will be even more to be dreaded than revolution itself, because better able to arrange his plans, and to carry them out more rapidly, with fewer obstacles, a greater appearance of legality, more pretensions to public utility, and consequently with more certainty of success and of permanent results. Revolutions have undoubtedly done great injury to the Church; but persecuting monarchs have done equally as much. A freak of Henry VIII. established Protestantism in England; the cupidity of certain other princes produced a like result in the nations of the north; and in our own days, a decree of the Autocrat of Russia drives millions of souls into schism. It follows that an unmixed monarchy, if it be not religious, is not desirable; for irreligion, immoral in its nature, naturally tends to injustice, and consequently to tyranny. If irreligion be seated on an absolute throne, or if she hold possession of the mind of its occupant, her powers are unlimited; and, for my part, I -know nothing more horrible than the omnipotence of wickedness. In recent times, European democracy has signalized itself lamentably by its attacks upon religion; a circumstance which, far from favoring its cause, has injured it extremely. We can indeed form an idea of a government more or less free, when society is virtuous, moral, and religious; but not when these conditions are wanting. In the latter case, the only form of government that remains is despotism, the rule of force, for force alone can govern men who are without conscience and without God. If we attentively consider the points of difference between the revolution of the United States and that of France, we shall find that one of the principal points of difference consists in this, that the American revolution was essentially democratic, that of France essentially impious. In the manifestos by which the former was inaugurated, the name of God, of Providence, is every where seen; the men engaged in the perilous enterprise of shaking off the yoke of Great Britain, far from blaspheming the Almighty, invoke his assistance, convinced that the cause of independence was the cause of reason and of justice. The French began by deifying the leaders of irreligion, overthrowing altars, watering with the blood of priests the temples, the streets, and the scaffolds-the only emblem of revolution recognized by the people is Atheism hand in hand with liberty. This folly has borne its fruits-it communicated its fatal contagion to other revolutions in recent times -the new order of things has been inaugurated with sacrilegious crimes; and the proclamation of the rights of man was begun by the profanation of the temples of Him from whom all rights emanate. Modern demagogues, it is true, have only imitated their predecessors the Protestants, the Hussites, the Albigenses; with this difference, however, that in our days irreligion has manifested itself openly, side by side with its companion, the democracy of blood and baseness; whilst the democracy of former times was allied with sectarian fanaticism. The dissolving doctrines of Protestantism rendered a stronger power necessary, precipitated the overthrow of ancient liberties, and obliged authority to hold itself continually on the alert, and ready to strike. When the influence of Catholicity had been enfeebled, the void had to be filled up by a system of espionage and force. Do not forget this, you who make war upon religion in the name of liberty; do not forget that like causes produce like effects. Where moral influences do not exist, their absence must be supplied by physical force: if you take from the people the sweet yoke of religion, you leave governments no other resource than the vigilance of police, and the force of bayonets. Reflect, and choose. Before the advent of Protestantism, European civilization, under the aegis of the Catholic religion, was evidently tending towards that general harmony, the absence of which has rendered necessary an excessive employment of force. Unity 2H2 890 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. of faith disappeared, opening the way to an unrestrained liberty of opinion and religious discord; the influence of the clergy was in some countries destroyed, in others weakened: thus was the equilibrium between different classes put an end to, and the class naturally destined to fill the office of mediator rendered powerless. By abridging the power of the Popes, both people and governments were let loose from that gentle curb which restrained without oppressing, and corrected without degrading; kings and people were arrayed against each other, without any body of men possessed of authority to interpose between them in case of a conflict; without a single judge, who, the friend of both parties, and disinterested in the quarrel, might have settled their differences with impartiality, governments began to place their reliance upon standing armies, and the people upon insurrections. And it is of no avail to allege that in countries where Catholicity prevailed, a political phenomenon arose similar to that which we observe in Protestant nations; for I maintain that amongst. Catholics themselves events did not follow the course which they naturally would have followed, had not the fatal.Reformation intervened. To attain its complete development, European civilization required the unity from which it had sprung; it could not by any other means establish harmony amongst the diverse elements which it sheltered in its bosom. Its homogeneity was gone the moment unity of faith disappeared. From that hour no nation could adequately effect its organization without taking into account, not only its own internal wants, but also the principles that prevailed in other countries, against the influence of which it had to be on its guard. Do you suppose, for instance, that the policy of the Spanish government, constituted as it was the protector of Catholicity against powerful Protestant nations, was not powerfully influenced by the peculiar and very dangerous position of the country? I think I have shown that the Church has never been opposed to the legitimate development of any form of government; that she has taken them all under her protection, and consequently that to assert that she is the enemy of popular institutions is a.calunmy. I have also placed it equally beyond a doubt, that the sects hostile to the Catholic Church, by encouraging a democracy either irreligious or blinded by fanaticism, so far from aiding in the establishment of just and rational liberty, have, in fact, left the people no alternative between unbridled licentiousness and unrestrained despotism. The lesson thus furnished by history is confirmed by experience; and the future will serve only to corroborate its truth. The more religious and moral men are, the more deserving they are of liberty; for they have then less need of external restraints, having a most powerful one in their own consciences. An irreligious and immoral people stand in need of some authority to keep them in order, otherwise they will be constantly abusing their rights, and will consequently deserve to lose them. St. Augustine perfectly understood these truths, and explains briefly and beautifully the conditions necessary for all forms of government. The holy Doctor shows that popular forms are good where the people are moral and conscientious; where they are corrupt, they require either an oligarchy or an unmixed monarchy. I have no doubt that an interesting passage, in the form of a dialogue, that we meet with in his first book on Free Will, chap. vi., will be read with pleasure. "Augustine. You would not maintain, for instance, that men or people are so constituted by nature as to be absolutely eternal, and subject neither to destruction nor change?-Evodius. Who can doubt that they are changeable, and subject to the influence of time?-Augustine. If the people are serious and temperate; and if, moreover, they have such a concern for the public good that each one would prefer the public interest to his own, is it not true that' PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 391 would be advisable to enact that such a people should choose their own authorities for the administration of their affairs.-Evodius. Certainly.-Augustzne. But, in case these same people become so corrupt that the citizens p. efer their own to the public good; if they sell their votes; f, corrupted by ambitious men, they intrust thte government of the state to men as criminal and corrupt as themselves; is it not true that, in such a case, if there be amongst them a man of integrity, and possessing sufficient power for the purpose, he will do well to take from these people the power of conferring honors, and concentrate it in the hands of a small number of upright men, or even in the hands of one man?-Evodius. Undoubtedly.-Augustine. Yet, since these laws appear very much opposed to each other, the one granting the people the right of conferring honors, the other depriving them of that right; since, moreover, they cannot both be in force at once, are we to affirm that one of these laws is unjust, or that it should not have been enacted?-Evodius. By no means."* The whole question is here comprised in a few words: Can monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, be one and all legitimate and proper? Yes. By what considerations are we to be guided in our decision as to which of these forms is legitimate and proper in any given case? By the consideration of existing rights, and of the condition of the people to whom such form is to be applied. Can a form once good become bad? Certainly it may; for all human things are subject to change. These reflections, as solid as they are simple, will prevent all excessive enthusiasm in favor of any particular form of government. This is not a mere question of theory, but one of prudence also. Now, prudence does not decide before having attentively considered and weighed all circumstances. But there is one predominant idea in this doctrine of St. Augustine: this idea I have already indicated, viz. that great virtue and disinterestedness are required under a free government. Those who are laboring to establish political liberty on the ruins of all religious'belief would do well to reflect upon the words of the illustrious doctor. How would you have people exercise extensive rights, if you disqualify them by perverting their ideas and corrupting their morals? You say that under representative forms of government reason and justice are secured by means of elections; and yet you labor to banish this reason and justice from the bosom of that society in which you talk of securing them. You sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind; instead of models of wisdom and prudence, you offer the people scandalous scenes. Do not say that we hre condemning the age, and that it progresses in spite of us: we reject nothing that is good; but perversity and corruption we must reprobate. The age progresses-true; but neither you nor we know whither. Catholics know one thing-a thing which it needs not a prophet to tell, viz. that a good social condition cannot be formed out of bad men; that immoral men are bad; that where there is no religion, morality cannot take root. Firm in our faith, we shall leave you to try, if you choose, a thousand forms of government, to apply your palliatives to your own social patient, to impose upon him with deceitful words; his frequent * Aug. Quid ipsi homines et populi, ejusne generis rerum sunt, ut interire mutarive non possint, mternique omnino sint?-L-vod. Iutabile plane atque tempori obroxiurn hoc genus csse quis dubitet?-Aug. Ergo, si populus sit bene moderatus et gravis, communisque utilitatis diligentissimus custos, in quo unusquisque minoris rein privatar quam publicam pendat, nonne recte lex fertur, qua huic ipsi populo liceat creare sibi magistratus, per quos sua res, id est publica, administretur?-E-vod. Recte prorsus.-Aug. l'oro, si paulatim depravatus idem populus rern privatam reipublicse prsferat, atque habeat venale suffragium, corruptusque ab eis qui honores ainant, regimen in se flagitiosis consceleratisque committat, nonne item recte, si quis tune extiterit vir bonus, qui plurimum possit, adimat huic populo potestatem dandi honores, ct in paucorum bonorum vel etiam unius redigat arbitrium?-Evod. Et id recte.-Aug. Cum ergo du(u ist? leges ita sibi videantur esse contrarins, ut una earum honorunm d.r.dn an. por'o tribuat potestatem, auferat altera, et cum ista secunda ita lata sit, ut nullo med xi-'.s':'\ % civitate simul esse possint, num dicemus aliquam earun injustam esse et ferri Irm. i a,.'' - — Evod..Nullo modo 892 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. convulsions-his continued restlessness-are evidences of your incapacity; and well is it for your patient that he still feels this anxiety: it is a sure sign that you have not entirely succeeded in securing his confidence. If ever you do secure it-if ever he fall asleep quietly in your arms-" all flesh will then have corrupted its way;" and it may also be feared lest God should resolve to sweep man from the face of the earth. CHAPTER LXIX. OF INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF CATHOLICITY. Ir has been abundantly proved in the course of this work, that the pseudoReformation has not in any way contributed to the perfection either of individuals or of society; from which we may naturally infer that the case is the same as regards the development of the intellect. I am unwilling, however, to let this truth stand merely as a corollary, and I believe it to be susceptible of a special elucidation. We may freely examine what advantage Protestantism has conferred upon the various branches of human learning, without any fear of the result as regards Catholicity. When we are to examine objects naturally embracing a great many different relations, it is not enough merely to pronounce certain conspicuous names, or to cite with emphasis one or two facts. This is not the way to place a question in its proper light; and to treat it adequately, much more is required. A discussion, either confined within limits too narrow to admit of its full development, or allowed an indefinite range, carries with it, in the eyes of an observer of only slight penetration, an air of universality, elevation, and boldness, whilst in reality it is all uncertainty and vagueness, and is liable to be involved in endless contradictions. To investigate this question satisfactorily, we must, it seems to me, grasp the Catholic and Protestant principles respectively, subject them to a most rigid scrutiny, and seize upon every point that appears favorable or inimical to the development of the human mind. Further, we should survey, in its widest range, the history of the intellect; pausing here and there at the epochs where the influence of the principle whose tendencies and effects we are studying has been most effectively exerted; then, rejecting anomalous exceptions, as proving nothing either one way or the other, and facts too insignificant and isolated to affect in any way the course of events, the mind, sufficiently elevated, and observing attentively, and with a sincere desire to know the truth, will be enabled to discover how far its philosophical deductions are in accordance with facts; and thus will it complete the solution of the problem. One of the fundamental principles of Catholicity, one of its distinctive characteristics, is the submission of the intellect to authority in matters of faith. This is the point against which the attacks of Protestants have ever been and still are directed: and this is quite natural, seeing that Protestants profess resistance to authority as a fundamental and constituent principle. From this fatal source flow all their other errors. If there be in Catholicity any thing capable of arresting the march of the mind or of lowering its flight, it must unquestionably be the principle of submission to authority. With this principle must rest all the blame in this respect, if indeed the Catholic religion be chargeable with any. Submission of the intellect to authority. These words, it cannot be denied, do, unless we have seized upon their true meaning, and ascertained the precise objects to which this submission is applicable, at first sight, convey an idea of antagonism to intellectual development. If you cherish an ardent affection for the dignity of our nature;, if you are an enthusiastic advocate of scientific PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 393 progress, and behold with delight the brilliant efforts of a bold, vigorous, and accomplished genius; you will discover something repulsive in a principle which appears to invoke slavery, since it checks the flight of the mind, clips the wings of the intellect, and casts it into the dust. But if you examine this principle in its essence, apply it to the various branches of learning, and observe what are the points of contact which it offers with the methods adopted for the cultivation of the mind, will you discover any foundation for these suspicions and apprehensions? What truth will you find in the reproaches of which Catholicity has been made the object? How vain and puerile will appear all the declamation published on this subject! We will now enter fully into the examination of this difficulty; we will take the Catholic principle, and analyze it with the eye of impartial philosophy. With this principle before us, we will survey the whole field of science, and consult the testimony of the greatest men. If we find that it has ever been opposed to the genuine development of any one branch of learning; if, on visiting the tombs where repose the most illustrious, they tell us that the principle of submission to authority chained down their intellects, obscured their imaginations, and withered their hearts,-we will then acknowledge that Protestants are right in the reproaches which they are constantly directing against the Catholic religion on this subject. God, man, society, nature, the entire creation-such are the objects on which our minds can be occupied; beyond the sphere of these objects we cannot reach, for they embrace infinity-there is nothing beyond them. Well, then, the Catholic principle opposes no obstacle to the mind's progress. Whether as regards God or man, society or nature, it imposes no shackles, places no obstacle in the way of the human mind; instead of checking this progress, it rather serves as a lofty beacon, which, far from interfering with the mariner's liberty, guides him in safety amid the obscurity of night. How does the Catholic principle oppose the freedom of the human mind in anything relating to the Divinity? Protestants surely will not tell us that there is anything at all wrong in the idea which the Catholic religion gives of God. Agreeing with us on the idea of a being eternal, immutable, infinite, the Creator of heaven and earth, just, holy, full of goodness, a rewarder of the good, and a punisher of the wicked, they admit this to be the only reasonable idea of God that can be presented to the mind of man. To this idea the Catholic religion unites an incomprehensible, profound, and ineffable mystery, veiled from the sight of weak mortals,-the august mystery of the Trinity; but on this point Protestants cannot reproach us, unless they are prepared to avow themselves Socinians. The Lutherans, the Calvinists, the Anglicans, and many other sects, condemn, as well as we do, those who deny this august mystery. We may remark iiere, that Calvin had Michael Servetus burned at Geneva foi his heretical doctrines on the Trinity. I am well aware of the ravages that Socinianism has made among the separated Churches, where the spirit and the right of private judgment in matters of faith have converted Christians into unbelieving philosophers; but, hotwithstanding this, the mystery of the Trinity was long respected by the leadiig Protestant sects, and is so yet, externally at least, by the greater part of them. In any case, I cannot see how this mystery shackles human reason in its contemplation of the Divinity. Does it pre 7ent it from going forth into immensity? What limit does it fix to the infinite ocean of light and being implied in the word God? Does it in the least obscure this splendor? When the mind of man, soaring above the regions of creation, and detaching itself from the body that would bear it down, abandons itself to the delights of sublime meditation on the infinite Being, Creator of heaven and 36 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. inextricable labyrinths, or from which we could not escape without falling into most lamentable absurdities; in a word, when we approach the investigation of these questions, we ought to consider ourselves happy in finding them resolved beforehand in their most important points, and in knowing where the truth lies, and where the danger of falling into error. The philosopher's position is then that of a man who, sure of the existence of a mine in a certain spot, does not waste his time in searching after it, but, knowing his ground, all his researches and labors are profitable from the first. This is the cause of the vast advantage which in these matters modern philosophers possess over those of antiquity: the ancients had to grope in the dark; the moderns, preceded by brilliant lights, advance with a firm and sure step, and march straight to their destination. They may boast incessantly that they set aside revelation, that they hold it in disdain, perhaps that they even openly attack it. Even in this case religion enlightens them, and often guides their steps; for there are a thousand splendid ideas for which they are indebted to religion, and which they cannot erase from their minds; ideas which they have found in books, learned in catechisms, and imbibed with their milk; ideas which they hear uttered by every one around them; which are spread everywhere, and which impregnate with their vivifying and beneficent influence the atmosphere they breathe. In repudiating religion, these same moderns are carrying ingratitude to great lengths; for at the very moment they insult her, they are profiting by her favors. This is not the place to enter into details on this matter, or numerous proofs might easily be adduced in support of the foregoing observations; a comparison between the first works of modern philosophy that came to hand and the works.of the ancients would be decisive; but such a labor would still be incomplete for those who are not versed in these matters; and for those who are so, it would be superfluous. I leave the question with entire confidence to the perspicacity and impartiality of my readers; it will, I think, be acknowledged that whenever our modern philosophers have spoken of man with truth and dignity, their language has borne the impress of Christian ideas. Such is the influence of Catholicity upon those sciences which, confined to a purely speculative order, allow the genius of the philosopher the widest range and the greatest freedom possible; but if, as regards those sciences, the influence of Catholicity, instead of checking the mind in its flight, only enlarges its range, increases its sublimity, its daring, and at the same time its security, by preventing it from running astray, what shall we say of its influence on the study of ethics? Has the whole body of philosophers together ever discovered any thing beyond what is contained in the Gospel? What doctrine excels in purity, in sanctity, in sublimity that taught by the Catholic religion? On this point we will do justice to the philosophers, even to those most hostile to the Christian religion. They have attacked its doctrines, and smiled at the divinity of its origin; but have always evinced a profound respect for its morality. I know not what secret influence has constrained them into an avowal that must certainly have cost them dear. "Yes," they invariably say, "it cannot be denied that the morality of Catholicity is excellent." There are certain doctrines of Catholicity which \cannot be said to appertain directly either to God, to man, or to morality, in the sense generally given to this word. The Catholic religion is a revealed. religion, of an order far superior to any thing that the human mind is capable of conceiving. Its object is to guide us to a destiny that we could neither attain nor even imagine by our )wn strength, and it is based upon this principle, that human nature, corrupted oy the fall, requires to be restored and purified; evidently, therefore, it should contain certain doctrines explanatory of the mode in which this work of restoration and purification is to be effected, whether in a general or particular PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 397 sense; and at the same time pointing out the means which God has chosen to lead man to happiness. Such are the doctrines of the Incarnation, of Redemption, of Grace, and of the Sacraments. These dogmas embrace a wide field; the relations in which they stand to God and to man are very extensive; the doctrines of the Catholic Church are, and always have been, unchangeable. Well then! extensive as they are, they afford not a single point that can be said to have a tendency to embarrass the free action of the intellect in investigations of any kind. The cause of this fact is the same as that I have already indicated. Those who have attentively compared the sciences of philosophy and theology may have remarked that theology, in the sublime questions mentioned above, occupies a sphere so distinct and supereminent as scarcely to preserve a single point of contact with that in which philosophy moves. They are two vast and sublime orbits, occupying in the depths of space positions very distant from each other. Man sometimes tries to make them approximate, and would be glad if a ray of terrestrial light could penetrate into the region of incomprehensible mysteries; but he scarcely knows how to begin this, and we hear him avow, with a profound sense of his own weakness, that he is speaking only-conventionally and by analogy, merely with a view to make himself better understood. The Church allows such attempts, owing to the good intentions they evince; sometimes she even prompts and encourages them, desiring, as far as possible, to accommodate what is incomprehensible in her doctrines to the feeble capacities of men. After all their reasonings on the attributes of the Divinity and the relations of man to God, have philosophers discovered any thing incompatible with these doctrines of Catholicity? Have revealed truths stood in their way as a stumbling-block to their investigations? When Descartes, in the seventeenth century, effected a revolution in philosophy, a singular incident occurred that will throw a strong light on this subject. The Catholic doctrine respecting the august mystery of the Eucharist is known, and also in what the dogma of transubstantiation consists. Many theologians, the reader is also probably aware, in order to explain the supernatural phenomenon which takes place after the consummation of the miracle, had recourse to the doctrine of accidents, which they distinguished from the substance. Now the theory of Descartes, and of almost all other modern philosophers, was incompatible with this explanation, for they denied the existence of accidents distinct from the substance. It consequently appeared at first sight that a difficulty would here arise for the Catholic doctrine, and that the Church would have to oppose this system of philosophy. And did it so happen? Not at all. Upon a careful investigation of the matter, it was seen that the Catholic dogma belonged to a region infinitely above that uncertain one in which the philosophic doctrine was discovered, however closely they might have seemed to approximate. In vain theologians discussed the matter, indulged in mutual recriminations, drew from the new doctrine all sorts of inferences, in order to represent it as dangerous. The Church, always superior to the thoughts of men kept aloof from these disputes, maintaining that grave, majestic, and impassive attitude so well becoming her to whom Jesus Christ confided the sacred deposit of His doctrine. Such is the liberty accorded by the Church to the genius of philosophers, that it is free in every sense. The Church has no need to be continually imposing restrictions and conditions; the sacred doctrines of which she is the depository dwelling in so elevated a region that the mind of man can scarcely ever meet them, at least so long as his investigations do not wander from the track of true philosophy. But this human reason, at once so powerful and so feeble, sometimes becomes puffed up with arrogance and pride, and in the name of liberty and in. dependence claims a right to blaspheme the Almighty, to deny man's free will, 21I 398 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. the immortality and spirituality of his soul, her sublime origin and her heavenly destiny. At such a time we avow, and we glory in the avowal, the Church does raise her voice, not to oppress or tyrannize over the human mind, but to defend the rights of the Supreme Being and the dignity of human nature; then, indeed, we behold her opposing, withunyielding firmness, that senseless liberty which consists in the fatal right of uttering all sorts of extravagances. This liberty Catholics neither possess nor desire, knowing that in these matters, as in others, there is a sacred line of demarcation between liberty and licentiousness. Happy slavery, that keeps us from atheism, materialism, and from doubting whether our souls come from God, whether they tend towards Him, and whether there exists for unhappy mortals, after the sufferings that weigh upon them in this life, a life of eternal happiness purchased by the merits of a God-man! As for the sciences which have society for, their object, I think I need not'vindicate the Catholic religion from the reproach of having in this respect oppressed the human mind. The long train of reflections in which I have set forth her doctrines and her influence, as regards the nature and extent of power, and the civil and political liberty of nations, proves to a demonstration that the Catholic religion, without descending to the arena in which the passions of men strive and contend, teaches a doctrine most favorable to true civilization and to the rightly-understood liberties of.the people. I will also touch briefly upon the relations of the Catholic principle with the study of the natural sciences. Assuredly it is not easy to see in what way this principle can be injurious to the progress of the human mind in this department of knowledge. I have said, it is not easy; I might have said impossible, and that for a very simple reason, founded upon a fact within the reach of every man; viz. the extreme reserve which the Catholic religion evinces in every thing relating to purely natural science. One might suppose that God had designed, on this matter, to read us a severe lesson on our excessive curiosity: you have only to read the Bible to be convinced of the truth of what I have advanced. I do not mean that nature is never noticed in the Bible; that divine book presents her to us in her grandest, noblest, and most sublime aspect; as a living whole, in.fact, together with all her relations and her sublime destiny, but without any kind of analysis or decomposition. In these sacred pages the painter's pencil and the poet's fancy will meet with magnificent models; but the inquisitive philosopher will look in vain for the hints he is in quest of. The Holy Spirit did not aim at making naturalists, but virtuous men; hence, in describing the creation, He represents it solely in a light the best adapted to excite in us feelings of admiration and gratitude towards the Author of so many wonders and benefits. Nature, as she appears in the sacred text, has not much to gratify the curiosity of the philosopher; but then she delights and ennobles the imagination-she moves and penetrates the heart. CHAPTER LXX. HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT. FROM the rapid view we have taken of the several branches of learing in their relations to the authority of the Church, it is clear to a demonstration, that the alleged enslavement of the intellect amongst Catholics is nothing but a mere bugbear: in no respect does our faith either arrest ol retard the progress of learning. Since, however, it not unfrequently happens that, in arguments apparently the most solid, a flaw is discovered when they are brought to the test of facts, it will be well to corroborate our assertion by historical testimony; PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WiTH CATHOLICITY. 899 fully assured as we are, that the result must be favorable to the cause of truth. We will begin at the beginning. M. Guizot maintains that the contest between the Church and the advocates of the freedom of thought originated in the middle ages. Noticing the efforts of John Erigena, Roscelin, Abelard, and the alarm they excited in the Church, he observes:' This was the great event that occurred at the end of the eleventh, and at the beginning of the twelfth centuries, at a time when the Church was under theocratic and monastic influence. It was then that, for the first time, a serious struggle was commenced between the clergy and the freethinkers." (list. Generale de la Civilisation en Europe. LeSon 6.) The entire scope of M. Guizot's work shows that, in his judgment, the best-founded reproach that could be cast upon the Catholic Church was, that she checked the freedom of thought. According to him, this is the point upon which the advantage of the Protestant system over Catholicity is the least controvertible. His object being the complete development of this idea, iA treating of the religious revolution of the sixteenth century it was requisite for him to deposit it as a seed in his preliminary lectures; as otherwise the fact of the Reformation would have appeared isolated, and shorn of its importance. IBesides, it was necessary that the resistance of Protestants to the Catholic Church should have a meaning; that it should carry with it the appearance of a noble and generous thought; that it should be regarded as the proclamation of the freedom of the human mind. To attain this end, the Church, on the one hand, must be represented as asserting claims in the middle ages to which she had not previously pretended; and, on the other, those writers who resisted these alleged pretensions of the Church must be held up as men of extraordinary penetration. Now, such is precisely the thread of M. Guizot's discourse; and we hence infer his efforts to prepare beforehand the triumph of his opinions. His plan, however, is ill-concerted; for he appears to have overlooked the most palpable facts in the history of the Church; and not even to have known what were the doctrines of the three champions, whose names he invokes with so much complacency. That no one may accuse me of making inconsiderate assertions, I will here quote his words literally: " Thus every thing," says he, " seemed turning to the advantage of the Church, of her unity, and of her power. Jlut whilst the Papacy was grasping at the government of the world, whilst the monasteries were undergoing a moral reformation, a few powerful but isolated individuals claimed for human reason the right of being something in man, the right to interfere in the formation of his opinions. Most of them refrained from attacking received opinions, or religious belief; they merely said that reason had a right to prove them; and that it was not enough that they were affirmed by authority. John Erigena, Roscelin, and Abelard were the interpreters, through whom individual reason began to lay claim to her inheritance -the first authors of that movement of liberty, which was associated with the reform movement of Hildebrand and St. Bernard If we seek the dominant feature of this movement, we shall find that it was not a change of opinion, a revolt against the system of public belief; it was simply the right of reasoning claimed for reason." (list. Generale de la Civilisation en Europe. Lewon 6.) We will pass over the author's singular parallel between the efforts of John Erigena, Roscelin, and Abelard, and those of the great reformers, Hildebrand or St. Gregory VII., and St. Bernard. These latter sought to reform the Church by legitimate means, to render the clergy more venerable by making them more virtuous, and to win greater respect for authority by sanctifying the persons entrusted with its exercise: the others, according to M. Guizot, resisted this authority in matters of faith; that is, they aimed at its overthrow, and for this purpose laid the axe to the root; the former were reformers 400 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. the latter devastators: and yet we are told that their efforts were directed to one and the same object, had one and the same tendency. Verily, the philo sophy of history were a sorry thing, if it could allow of such a confusion of ideas! What progress can be made in this branch of knowledge, by men who have so strange a way of dealing with facts? But, I repeat, let us take leave of these aberrations, and fix our attention specially on two points: the worth of these three writers, so much vaunted, and the idea we are told to entertain of their resistance to authority. Doubtless the names of John Erigena and Roscelin are already pronounced with respect by those persons who would fain be thought well versed in the philosophy of history, without having ever read history, and who are obliged to content themselves with those easy lessons that are learned in an hour, and studied in an evening. With persons of this description, it is enough to have heard these names pronounced with emphasis, to have seen them coupled with epithets, such as powerful men, advocates of human reason, interpreters of individual reason, to make them fancy that learning is no less indebted to Erigena and Roscelin than to Descartes or Bacon. Without bearing in mind the remarks I have already made on the pecuiiarity of M. Guizot's position, it would not be easy to conjecture why he should seek to represent as new and extraordinary, what was, in fact, neither new nor -'ncommon; how he could say that the Church first began the contest against liberty of thought, when she put down Erigena, Roscelin, and Abelard. He brings forward these three writers, as though their influence had been paramount; whereas they had no more influence than other sectarians, who abounded in preceding centuries. Who and what really was this John Erigena? A writer but imperfectly versed in theological science; but who, puffed up by the favor shown him by Charles the Bold, broached certain errors on the subject of the Eucharist, predestination and grace. In all that, I see only a man departing from the doctrine of the Church; and in Nicholas the First attempting to stop him in his career, I see only a Pope fulfilling his duty. What is there in all this either new or extraordinary? Does not the whole history of the Church, from the time of the Apostles, exhibit an unbroken succession of similar facts? I repeat, it is impossible to conceive for what purpose the name of Erigena is brought forward. His errors produced no result of importance; and the age in which he lived cannot be considered as having exercised any great influence on the intellectual development of subsequent times. He lived in the ninth century. Now, this century had no share in the movement of those that followed; indeed, it is well known that the tenth century was the darkest period of ignorance during the middle ages; and that the intellectual movement commenced only at the close of the tenth, and at the opening of the eleventh century. Erigena and Roscelin are separated by two centuries. As for Roscelin and Abelard, it is easier to understand why their names are cited. Every one knows the noise that Abelard made in the world by his doctrines, and perhaps still more by his adventures. Roscelin may also command attention by his errors, and especially as the master of Abelard. To give an idea of the spirit that guided these men, and of the opinion we are to form of their intentions, we must enter into some details touching their lives and their doctrines. Roscelin was one of the most crafty men of his time. A subtle dialectician and warm partizan of the sect of the Nominalists, he substituted his own opinions for the teaching of the Church; and ended by falling iono the gravest errors on the sacred mystery of the Trinity. History has recorded a fact, that proves incontestably the notorious dishonesty of the manhis want of probity and of modesty. At the time that Roscelin was propagating his errors, S'. Anselm, who was afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, was.iving, but at thua time abbot of Beck. Lanfrano, archbishop of Canterbury, PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 401 who died some time before, had left behind him the highest reputation for virtue and sound doctrine. Roscelin thought that the authority of so high a name would give currency and consideration to his errors; and, resorting to the foulest calumny, he affirmned that his opinions were the same as those of Arch bishop Lanfranc, and Anselm, abbot of Beck. To this calumny Lanfranc could not reply, as he was already in the tomb; but the abbot of Beck vigorously repelled so unjust an imputation; and at the same time vindicated the reputation of Lanfranc, who had been his master. The works of St. Anselm leave no doubt as to the nature of Roscelin's errors. We find them recorded with the greatest precision. In fact, it were difficult to say why MI. Guizot has conferred so much importance upon this man, or why he should be adduced as one of the principal champions of the freedom of thought. There is nothing in Roscelin to distinguish him from other heretics. He is a man who einploys artifices and subtleties, and falls into error; but nothing is more common in the history of the Church; and it certainly cannot be considered matter of astonishment. Abelard is more deserving of notice: his name has become so famous that no one is unacquainted with, his sad adventures. A disciple of Roscelin, and as well skilled as his master in the dialectics of the age, endowed with great talents, and eager to parade them on the principal theatres of literature, Abelard earned a reputation never attained by the dialectician of CompiBgne. His errors on points of very great importance produced much mischief in the Church and drew upon himself many sorrows. But it is not true, as M. Guizot will have it, that his doctrines met with less reproof than his method; neither is it true that he and his master Roscelin had no intention of effecting a radical change in matters of doctrine. Evidence of a most unexceptionable kind fortunately places the matter beyond all doubt, and proves that it was not Roscelin's method, but his error on the Trinity, for which he was condemned. Nor have we less certainty in the case of Abelard; for the various errors taken from his works are preserved in the form of articles. We learn from St. Bernard, that on the Trinity, Abelard held the opinions of Arius-on the Incarnation, those of Nestorius-on grace, those of Pelagius. All this did not merely te)nd to a radical change of doctrine, but actually was one. I do not know that Abelard ever protested against the truth of these accusations; and even if he had, we all know how to estimate such a protest. It is certain that, in the famous Assembly of Sens-convoked at the request of Abelard himself-he had not a word to say in reply to the sainted abbot of Clairvaux, who reproached him with his errors; and laying before him the very words of his propositions, extracted from his writings, urged him either to defend or abjure them Abelard, confronted with so formidable an adversary, was so embarrassed that he could only say, in reply, that he appealed to Rome. The Council of Sens, out of respect for the Holy See, abstained from condemning the person of the innovator, but did not fail te condemn his errors; and this condemnation was approved by the Sovereign Pontiff, and extended to his person also. Now, from the articles containing the errors of Abelaid, it does not appear that his dominant idea was to proclaim the liberty of thought. He has, it is true, an overweening confidence in his own subtleties; but, beyond this, his only fault is an erroneous and dogmatizing spirit on points of the greatest importance; a fault which he had in common with all the heretics who preceded him. All this M. Guizot ought to have known; how he can have overlooked it I cannot imagine, nor why he attaches to these authors an importance which they really do not deserve. Perhaps he was anxious to furnish Protestants with some illustrious predecessors, when he laid such stress on the names of Roscelin and Abelard. These two, after all, were not deficient in ability or in erudition. 51 2 2 402 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. and they lived precisely during the early period of the intellectual movement. Probably M. Guizot thought, that to bring these two innovators upon the scene would answer his purpose extremely well, as showing that, from the very dawn of intellectual development, men of the greatest fame had raised their voices in favor of freedom of thought. After all, had M. Guizot succeeded in proving that John Erigena, Roscelin, and Abelard aimed at nothing more than the assertion of the right of private examination in matters of faith, it would not follow that these innovators had not sought to effect a radical change in matters of doctrine. In fact, what can be more radical as regards matters of faith than that which strikes at authority, the root of all certainty? Neither would it follow, that in condemning the errors of these men the Church had taken alarm merely at their method; for if this method was to consist in withdrawing the intellect from the yoke of authority, even in matters of faith, it was itself a very grievous error, combated at all times by the Catholic Church, which never would consent to have her authority called in question on points of faith. And yet, if these innovators had entered into the contest chiefly for the purpose of contending against authority in matters of faith, M. Guizot would have had some reason to notice their proceedings as constituting a new era; but, strange to say, their propositions do not appear to have been drawn up with a view to advocate the independence of thought, nor against authority in matters of faith; it was not for such an attempt, but for other errors, that the Church condemned them. Where, then, are the accuracy and historical truth which we should expect from such a man as M. Guizot? How could he venture, in addressing a numerous audience, thus to substitute his own thoughts for facts? The fact is, he well knew that these were matters generally treated very superficially; that to gain the sympathy of superficial men it would suffice to speak in pompous terms of the liberty of thought, to pronounce certain names probably heard by many for the first time, such as Erigena alld Roscelin, and especially to mention the unfortunate lover of Heloise. M. Guizot, unable to conceal from himself that his observations upon this period were somewhat feeble, tries to apply a remedy by inserting a passage from the Introduction to the Theology of Abelard, which, in my opinion, is very far from answering the purpose of the publicist. His object, in fact, is to show that from that very period a vigorous spirit of resistance to the authority of the Church in matters of faith had sprung up, and that the human mind was even then longing to burst asunder the fetters in which it had been held. He would have us believe that Abelard, yielding to the importunities of his own disciples, had the courge to throw off the yoke of authority; and that his writings were, to a certain extent, the expression of a necessity long felt, of an idea with which many minds had long been agitated. The following is the passage referred to: " If we seek the dominant feature of this movement, we shall find that it was not a change of opinion, a revolt against the system of public belief; it was simply the right of reasoning claimed for reason." We have already seen how utterly devoid of truth is this assertion of the publicist. The very attack upon authority was itself a radical change in opinions, and a revolution in received doctrines; for the authority of the Church was in itself a dogma, and formed the basis of all religious belief, as experience has satisfactorily shown, since the appearance of Protestantism at the commence. ment of the sixteenth century. But let us allow the historian to proceed: The disciples of Abelard, as he himself tells us in his Introduction to Theology, required of him philosophical arguments, and such as would satisfy reason, requesting him to teach them not merely to repeat his instructions, but to understand them also; for no one can believe what he does not understand, and it is ridiculous to preach to others things that neither the teacher nor his pupils understand.'What object can the study of philosophy have but that of PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 403 leading the mind to the contemplation of God, to whom all things are to be referred? Why are the faithful allowed to read works treating of worldly affairs and the books of the Gentiles, except to prepare them to understand the sacred Scriptures, and to furnish them with the skill necessary for their defence?...... For this purpose alone we should avail ourselves of all our reasoning powers, lest, on questions so difficult and complicated as those that form the object of Christian faith, the subtilty of our opponents should too readily injure the purity of our faith.' " It cannot be denied, that in Abelard's time a lively curiosity aroused men's minds to employ all their powers to be able to give a reason for what they believed; but it is not true that the Church threw any obstacle in the way of this movement, considering it as a scientific method, and so long as it did not overstep legitimate bounds, and attack or undermine the articles of faith. It is impossible to take a more unfavorable view of the Church than M. Guizot has here taken of her; nor could any one more completely overlook, I will even say distort, facts. "The importance of this first attempt at liberty," says he, "of this revival of the spirit of inquiry, was soon felt. The Church, though engaged in effecting her own reform, took the alarm nevertheless, and at once declared war against the reformers, whose new methods menaced her with more evils than their doctrines." Thus is the Church represented as conspiring against the progress of thought, repressing with a strong arm the first attempts of the mind to advance in the path of science, and laying aside questions of doctrine to contend against methods; and all this, we are told, as if it were something new and wonderful. " For," says M. Guizot, " this was the great event which occurred at the end of the eleventh and beginning of the twelfth centuries, at a time when the Church was under theocratic and monastic influence. It was now that, for the first time, a serious struggle commenced between the clergy and the freethinkers. The quarrels of Abelard and St. Bernard, the Councils of Soissons and Sens, in which Abelard was condemned, merely give expression to this event, which has occupied so large a space in the history of modern civilization." Still the same confusion of ideas. I have said already, and must repeat here that the Church has condemned no method; it was not a method, but error, that the Church condemned, unless by a method be meant an assault upon the articles of faith, under pretence of breaking the fetters of authority, which is not merely a method, but an error of the very highest import. In leproving a pernicious doctrine, subversive of all faith, and denying the infallibility of the See of St. Peter in matters of doctrine, the Church did not put forth any new pretensions; her conduct has always been the same ever since the time of the Apostles, and is the same still. The moment a doctrine is propagated that appears in the least degree dangerous, the Church examines it, compares it with the sacred deposit of truth confided to her; if the doctrine is not inconsistent with divine truth, she allows it free circulation, for she is not ignorant that God has given up the world to the controversies of mene; but if it is opposed to the faith, its condemnation is irremissible, without concern or regret. Were the Church to act otherwise, she would contradict herself, and cease to be what she is, the jealous depository of divine truth. If she allowed her infallible authority to be questioned, that moment she would forget one of her most sacred obligations, and would lose all claim on our belief; for, in betraying an indifference for truth, she would prove herself to- be no longer a religion descended from heaven, but a mere delusion. Precisely at the time of which M. Guizot speaks, we observe a fact which proves that the Church allows free scope to the exercise of thought. The high reputation which St. Anselm sustained during his whole career, and the great 404 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITI. esteem in which he was held by the Sovereign Pontiffs of his time, are well known; yet St. Anselm philosophised with great freedom. In the introduction to his Monologue, he tells us that some persons entreated him to explain things by reason alone, without the aid of the sacred Scriptures. The Saint was not afraid to comply with their request, and he accordingly wrote the little work we have just named. In other parts of his works, too, St. Anselm adopts the same method. Very few persons concern themselves now-a-days about ancient writers, and doubtless very few have read the works of the holy Doctor of whom we are speaking. They display, however, such perspicuity of thought, such solid reasoning, and above all such a discreet and temperate judgment, that we are surprised to find the human mind, at the very commencement of the intellectual movement, attaining to so high an elevation. In him we find the greatest freedom of thought combined with the respect due to the authority of the Church; and far from impairing the vigor of his ideas, this respect augments their force and perspicuity. From his works we learn that Abelard was not the only one who taught, not merely to repeat his lectures, but also to un(lerstand them; for St. Anselm, some years previous, followed the same method with a clearness and solidity far beyond what could be expected at that time. We there discover, also, that in the bosom of the Catholic Church men carried the operations of reason to the greatest possible extent, though always within the bounds prescribed by its own weakness, and with reverential regard to the sacred veil that shrouds august mysteries. The works of St. Anselm prove that Abelard was not exactly the man to teach the world that the end of philosophical studies is to lead the mind to the contemplation of God, to whom all things should be referred; and that we should avail ourselves of all our reasoning powers, lest on questions so difficult and complicated as those that form the object of Christian faith, the subtilties of our opponents should too readily injure the purity of our faith. But from the Saint's profound submission to the authority of the Church; from the candor and ingenuousness with which he acknowledges the limits of the human mind, we see that he was persuaded that it is not impossible to believe what we do not comprehend; and, in fact, there is a wide difference between the conviction that a thing exists, and a clear knowledge of the nature of the thing in the existence of which Bwe believe. CHAPTER LXXI. RELIGION AND THE HUMAN MIND IN EUftOPE. As we are to examine what was, in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the conduct of the Church in reference to innovators, we will avail ourselves of the excellent opportunity afforded by this epoch for noticing the progress of the human mind. It has been said that in Europe intellectual development was exclusively theological. This is true, and necessarily so; all the faculties of man receive their development according to the circumstances that surround him; and as his health, his temperament, his strength, his color even, and his stature depend upon climate, food, mode of life, and other circumstances affecting him, so in like manner his moral and intellectual faculties bear the stamp of the principles which predominate in the family and society of which he forms a constituent part. Now, in Europe, religion was the predominating clement; in every thing religion made herself heard and felt; nowhere was there a principle of life or action discoverable unconnected with religion. It was quite natural, therefore, that in Europe all the faculties of man should have their development in a religious sense. A little attention will show us PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 405 that this was the case not with the intellect only, but likewise with the heart, with the passions even, and with the whole moral man; just as, in whatever direction we go in Europe, we meet at every step with some monument of religion; so whatever faculty we examine in the individual European, we find upon it the impress of religion. And the case was the same with families and society as with individuals; religion was equally predominant in both. Wherever man has progressed towards a state of perfection, we observe a similar phenomenon; and it is an invariable fact in the history of the human race, that no society ever entered on the road to civilization, save under the direction and impulse of religious principles. True or false, rational or absurd, wherever mantis on the road to improvement, these principles are found. Some nations, indeed, may well excite our pity at the monstrous superstitions into which they have fallen; but we still must acknowledge, that, under these very superstitions, lay concealed germs of good that did not fail to produce considerable benefits. The Egyptians, Phoenicians, Greeks, and Romans were all extremely superstitious; yet the progress they made in civilization and intellectual culture was such, that their monuments and memorials strike us even yet with admiration. It is easy to smile at an extravagant observance or a senseless dogma; but we should remember that the growth and preservation of certain moral principles cannot be otherwise secured than under the protecting shade of religious belief. Now, these principles are most indispensably necessary to prevent' individuals from being monstrously changed, and to maintain the social and family ties unbroken. Much has been said against the immorality tolerated, permitted, and sometimes even taught by certain forms of religion; and certainly nothing is more lamentable than to behold man thus led astray by that which ought to be his best guide. Let us, however, look for a reality beneath these shadows, which appear at first so gloomy, and we shall soon discover some rays of light that may lead us to regard false'religions, not indeed with indulgence, but with less horror than those infamous systems which make matter self-existent, and pleasure the only divinity. To preserve the idea of moral good and evil, an idea without meaning except in the supposition that there exists a divine power, is itself an inestimable advantage. Now this advantage adheres inseparably to every form of religion, even to those that make the most absurd and most criminal applications of the idea of good and evil. Doubtless, the people of antiquity, and those of our own time who have not received the light of Christianity, have gone most deplorably astray; but, in the midst of their very wanderings, there always remains a certain degree of light; and this light, however dimly it shines, however faint and feeble its rays, is incomparably better than the thick darkness of atheism. Between the nations of antiquity and those of Europe there is this very remarkable difference, that the former passed from a state of infancy to a state of civilization; while the latter advanced to this, in passing from'that undefinable state which, in Europe, was the result of the invasion of the barbarians, of the confused mixture of a young with a decrepit society, of rude and ferocious nations with others that were civilized, cultivated, or rather effeminate. Hence, amongst the ancients the imagination was developed before the intellect, whilst amongst Europeans the intellect came before. the imagination. With the former, poetry came first; with the latter, what is termed dialectics and metaphysics. What is the reason of so striking a difference? When a people are yet in their infancy, either an infancy properly so called, or having lived long in ignorance, in a state similar to that of an infant people, we find them rich in sensations, but very poor in ideas. Nature, with her majesty, her wonders, and her mysteries, affects such a people the most; their language is grand, 406 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. picturesque, and highly poetical; their passions are not refined, but, on the other hand, they are very energetic ad violent. Now an intellect that ingenuously seeks the light, loves truth in its purity and simplicity, confesses and embraces it readily, lending itself neither to subtilties, artifices, nor disputes. The least thing that makes a vivid impression upon the senses or the imagination of such a people fills them with surprise and wonder; you cannot inspire them with enthusiasm without setting before them something heroic and sublime. On the first glance at the state of the people of Europe in the middle ages, we perceive in them a certain resemblance to an infant people, but, at the same time, a very striking difference on several points. Their passions are very strong, they are pleased beyond every thing with the wonderful and the extraordinary, and, for want of realities, their imagination conjures up'gigantic phantoms. The profession of arms is their favorite occupation; they rush eagerly into the most perilous adventures, and meet them with incredible courage. All this indicates a development of the feelings of sensibility and imagination, inasmuch as they produce intrepidity and valor; but, strange to say, together with these dispositions, we find a singular taste for things the most purely intellectual; with the most lively, ardent, and picturesque reality, we find associated a taste for the coldest and barest abstractions. A knight, with the cross on his shoulder, gorgeously clad, covered with trophies, beaming with glory won in a hundred combats; a subtile dialectician, disputing on the system of the Nominalists, and urging his subtilely devised abstractions till he becomes unintelligible;-these are certainly two characters very dissimilar, and yet they exist together in the same society; both have their prestige, receive the greatest homage, and are followed by enthusiastic admirers. Even when we have taken into account the singular position of the European nations at that period, it is not easy to assign a cause for this anomaly. We can easily understand how the people of Europe, emerging, for the most part, from the forests of the North, and engaged for a long time either in intestine wars or in conflicts with vanquished tribes, should have preserved, together with their warlike habits, a strong and lively imagination and violent passions; but it is not so easy to account for their taste for an order of ideas purely metaphysical and dialectical. When, however, we come to look deeply into the matter, we discover that this apparent anomaly had its origin in the very nature of things. How is it that a people in their infancy have so much imagination and sensibility? Because the objects by which these faculties are naturally excited abound around them; because individuals, being continually exposed to the influence of external things, these objects operate upon them more forcibly. Man first feels and imagines; later he understands and reflects: this is the natural order in which his faculties.begin to operate. Hence, with every people the development of the imagination and of the passions precedes that of the intellect; the passions and the imagination finding their object and aliment before the intellect. This accounts, also, for the fact that the poetical always precedes the philosophical era. From this it follows, that nations in their infancy think little, as they want ideas; and this is the chief distinctive mark between them and the people of Europe at the period we are speaking of. In fact, ideas at that time abounded in Europe; and hence the purely intellectual was held in such repute even amidst the most profound ignorance. Hence, also, the intellect strove to shine even before its time appeared to have arrived. Sound ideas respecting God, respecting man and society, were already every. where disseminated, thanks to the incessant teaching of Christianity; and as there still remained numerous traces of the wisdom of antiquity, both Christian and Pagan, the consequence was, that every man possessed of a little learning had, in fact, a great fund of ideas. It is clear, however, that notwithstanding these advantages, the minds of PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 407 men could not, amidst the chaos of erudition and philosophy that then presented itself, escape the confusion naturally resulting from the wide-spread ignorance, occasioned by a long succession of revolutions. They could not possess sufficient discrimination and judgment to pursue all at once, and with success, the study of the Bible, of the writings of the holy Fathers, of the civil and canon law, of the works of Aristotle, and of the Arabian commentaries. Yet these were all studied at the same time; on all these, disputes were zealously maintained; and the errors and extravagances which in such a state of things were inevitable were accompanied by the presumption that is invariably inherent in ignorance. To succeed in explaining certain passages of the Bible, of the Fathers, of the codes, and of the works of philosophers, great preparatory labors were necessary, as the experience of subsequent ages has proved. It was necessary to study languages, to examine archives and monuments, to collect together from all parts an immense mass of materials; then, to reduce these to order, to compare them together, and to discriminate between them; in a word, it was necessary to possess a rich fund of learning, enlightened by the torch of criticism. Now all this was then wanting, and could only be attained in the course of ages. The consequence was inevitable, considering the mania that existed for explaining every thing. If a difficulty arose, and the facts and knowledge requisite for its solution were wanting, they adopted a roundabout way; instead of seeking the support derivable from facts, the disputants took their stand upon an idea; substituting some subtle abstraction for solid reasoning; where they found it impossible to form a body of sound doctrine, they threw together a confused mass of ideas and words. Who could repress a smile, or not feel pity for Abelard, for instance, promising his disciples to explain to them the prophet Ezechiel, with very little time for preparation, and actually fulfilling his promise? I would ask the reader whether, in the middle of the thirteenth century, an explanation of Ezechiel, given with only a slight preparation, could have been successsful or interesting? The study of dialectics and metaphysics was embraced with so much ardor, that in a short time these branches of knowledge superseded all others. The consequences were prejudicial to the minds of men; their attention being wholly engrossed by this object of their choice, the pursuit of more solid learning was regarded with indifference-history was neglected, literature unnoticed, in a word, the mind was only half developed. Every thing appertaining to the imagination and the feelings was sacrificed to the cultivation of the intellect; not, indeed, in its most useful operations,-the formation of a clear and perfect perception, of a mature judgment, of a habit of sound and accurate reasoning, -but in those which are astute, subtle, and extravagant. Those who would reproach the Church for her conduct at that period in reference to innovators have a very imperfect understanding of the actual condition of Europe as regards science and religion. We have already seen that the intellectual development was religious; consequently, even when it deviated from the right path, it still retained this character, and the oddest subtilties were applied to mysteries the most sublime. Almost all the heretics of the time were renowned dialecticians, and their errors arose from an excess of subtilty. Roscelin, one of the leading dialecticians of his time, was the founder, or at least one of the leaders of the sect of the Nominalists. Abelard was celebrated for the readiness of his talents, his skill in disputation, and his address in explaining every thing to suit his thesis. The abuse of his intellect led him into the errors which we have already spoken of-errors which he would have avoided, had he not proudly yielded himself up to his own vain thoughts. The mania for subtilising every thing drew Gilbert de la Poirde into the most lamentable errors on the subject of the Divinity; Amaury, another celebrated philosopher, after the fashion of the time, took up so warmly 408 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITII CATHOLICITY. the question of Aristotle's primordial matter, that he ended by declaring matter to be God. The Church strenuously opposed these errors, which arose in great numbers in minds led astray by vain arguments, and puffed up with foolish pride. It would argue a strange misconception of the true interests of science, to suppose that the Church's resistance to these raving innovators was not most favorable to intellectual progress. These headstrong men, eager in the pursuit of knowledge, and captivated by the first chimera presented to their imagination, stood greatly in need of some discreet authority to restrain them within the bounds of reason and moderation. The intellect had scarcely taken the first steps in the career of knowledge, and yet fancied it already knew every thing, "pretending to know all things except the nescio, I know not," as St. Bernard reproaches the vain Abelard. Why should we not, for the good of humanity, and the credit of the human intellect, approve the condemnation pronounced by the Church against the errors of Gilbert, which aimed at nothing less than the overthrow of the ideas that we have of God? If Amaury and his disciple David de Dinant are smitten by the sentence of the Church, it is because they destroy the idea of the Divinity by confounding the Creator with,p'imordiul matter. Was it for the advantage of Europe that its intellectual movement should be commenced by precipitating itself at the very outset into the abyss of pantheism? Had the human intellect followed in its development the way marked out for it by the Church, European civilization would have gained at least two centuries; the fourteenth century would have been as far advanced as the sixteenth was. To convince ourselves of the truth of this assertion, we have only to compare writings with writings, and men with men; the men most firmly attached to the faith of the Church attained to such eminence that they left the age in which they lived far behind them. Roscelin's antagonist was St. Anselm; the latter always remained faithful to the authority of the Church; the former rebelled against her: and who, let met ask, would have the hardihood to compare the dialectician of Compidgne with the learned Archbishop of Canterbury? How vast the difference between the profound and skilful metaphysician who composed the Monologue and the Prosologue, and the frivolous leader of the disputes of the Nominalists! Have the subtilties and cavillings of Roscelin any weight whatever against the lofty thoughts of the man who, in the eleventh century, to prove the existence of God, could reject all vain and captious reasonings, concentrate himself within himself, consult his own ideas, compare them with their object, and demonstrate the existence of God from the very idea of God, thus anticipating Descartes by five hundred years? Who best understood the true interests of science? Show me how the intellect of St. Anselm was degraded or shackled by the influence of the formidable authority of the Church, by any usurpation on the part of Popes of the rights of the human mind. And can Abelard himself be conpared, either as a man, or as a writer, with his Catholic adversary, St. Bernard? Abelard was a perfect master of all the subtilties of the schools; noisy disputes were his amusement; he was intoxicated with the applause of his disciples, who were dazzled by their master's talents and courage, and still more by the learned follies of the age; yet what has become of his works? Who reads them? Who ever thinks of finding in them a single page of sound reasoning, the description of a single great event, or a picture of the manners of the time, in other words, the least matter of interest to science or history? On the contrary, what man of learning has not often sought this in the immortal works of St. Bernard? It is impossible to find a more sublime personification of the Church conm bating against the heretics of his time than the illustrious Abbot of Clairvaux, PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 40S contending against all innovators, and speaking, if we may use the term, in the name of the Catholic faith. No one could more worthily represent the ideas and sentiments which the Church endeavored to diffuse amongst mankind, nor more faithfully delineate the course through which Catholicity would have led the human mind. Let us pause for a moment in the presence of this gigantic mind, which attained to an eminence far beyond any of its contemporaries. This extraordinary man fills the world with his name-upheaves it by his words-sways it by his influence; in the midst of darkness he is its light; he forms, as it were, a mysterious link, connecting the two epochs of St. Jerome and St. Augustine, of Bossuet and Bourdaloue. In the midst of a general relaxation and corruption of morals, by the strictest observances and the most perfect purity he is proof against every assault. Ignorance prevails throughout all classes; he studies night and day to enlighten his mind. A false and counterfeit erudition usurps the place of true knowledge; he knows its unsoundness, disdains and despises it; and his eagle eye discovers at a glance that the star of truth moves at an immense distance from this false reflection, from this crude mass of subtilties and follies, which the men of his time termed philosophy. If at that period there existed any useful learning, it was to be sought in the Bible, and in the writings of the holy Fathers; to the study of these, therefore, St. Bernard devotes himself unremittingly. Far from consulting the vain babblers who are arguing and declaiming in the shools, St. Bernard seeks his inspirations in the silence of the cloister, or in the august sanctuary of the temple; if he goes out, it is to contemplate the great book of nature, to study eternal truths in the solitude of the desert, and, as he himself has expressed it, "in forests of beech-trees." Thus did this great man, rising superior to the prejudices of his time, avoid the evil produced in his contemporaries by the method then prevailing. By this method the imagination and the feelings were stifled; the judgment warped; the intellect sharpened to excess; and learning converted into a laby rinth of confusion. Read the works of the sainted Abbot of Clairvaux, and you will find that all his faculties go, as it were, hand in hand. If you look for imagination, you will find the finest coloring, faithful portraits, and splendid descriptions. If you want feeling, you will learn how skilfully he finds his way into the heart, captivates, subdues, and fashions it to his will. Now he strikes a salutary fear into the hardened sinner, tracing with great force the formidable picture of the divine justice and the eternal vengeance; then he consoles and sustains the man who is sinking under worldly adversity, the assaults of his passions, the recollection of his transgressions, or an exaggerated fear of the divine justice. Do you want pathos? Listen to his colloquies with Jesus and Mary; hear him speaking of the blessed Virgin with such enrapturing sweetness, that he seems to exhaust all the epithets that the liveliest hope and the most pure and tender love can suggest. Would you have vigor and vehemence of style, and that irresistible torrent of eloquence which nothing can resist, which carries the mind beyond itself, fires it with enthusiasm, compels it to enter upon the most arduous paths, and to undertake the most heroic enterprises? See him with his burning words inflaming the zeal of the people, nobles, and kings; moving them to quit their homes, to take up arms, and to unite in numerous armies that pour into Asia to rescue the Holy Sepulchre. This extraordinary man is every where met with, every where heard. Entirely free from ambition, he possesses, nevertheless, a leading influence in the great affairs of Europe: though fond of solitude and retirement, he is continually obliged to quit the obscurity of the cloister to assist in the councils of kings and popes. He never flatters, never betrays the truth, never dissembles the sacred ardor which burns within his breast; and yet he is every where listened to with profound respect; his stern voice is heard in the cottages of the 62 2 K 410 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. poor and in the palaces of kings; he admonishes with terrible severity the most obscure monk and the Sovereign Pontiff. In the midst of so much ardor and activity, his mind loses none of its clearness or precision. His exposition of a point of doctrine is remarkable for ease and lucidity; his demonstrations are vigorous and conclusive; his reasoning is conducted with a force of logic that presses close upon his adversary, and leaves him no means of escape: in defence, his quickness and address are surprising. In his answers he is clear and precise; in repartee, quick and penetrating; and without dealing in the subtilties of the schools, he displays wonderful tact in disentangling truth fron error, sound reason from artifice and fraud. Here is a man formed entirely and exclusively under the influence of Catholicity; a man who never strayed from the pale of the Church, who never dreamed of setting his intellect free from the yoke of authority; and yet he rises like a mighty pyramid above all the men of his time. To the eternal honor of the Catholic Church, and utterly to disprove the accusation brought against her, of exerting an influence hostile to the freedom of the human mind, I must observe that St. Bernard was not the only man who rose superior to the age, and pointed out the way to genuine progress. It is unquestionably certain, that the most distinguished men of that period, those least influenced by the evils that so long kept the human mind in pursuit of mere vanities and shadows, were precisely the men most devotedly attached to Catholicity. These men set an example of what was necessary to be done for the advancement of learning; an example.that for a long time had, it is true, but few followers, but which found some in subsequent ages: now it is to be observed that the progress of learning was due to the credit obtained by this method-I speak of the study of antiquity. The sacred sciences were the chief object of attention at this period; as the intellect was theologically developed, dialectics and metaphysics were studied with a view to their application to theology. With Roscelin, Abelard, Gilbert de la Poiree, and Amaury, the phrase was: " Let us reason, subtilise, and apply our systems to all sorts of questions; let our reason be our rule and guide, without which knowledge is impossible." With St. Bernard, St. Anselm, Hugh and Richard de St. Victor, Peter Lombard, on the contrary, it was: "Let us see what antiquity teaches; let us study the works of the holy Fathers; let us analyse and compare their texts; we cannot place our dependence exclusively on arguments, which are sometime dangerous and sometimes futile." Which of these two judgments has been actually confirmed? Which of these methods was adopted when real progress was to be made? Was not recourse had to an unremitting study of ancient works? Was it not found necessary to throw aside the cavils of the dialecticians? Protestants themselves boast of having taken this way; their theologians consider it an honor to be versed in antiquity; and would be offended if treated as mere dialecticians. On which side, then, was reason? With the heretics, or with the Church? Who best understood the method most favorable to intellectual progress? The heretical dialectician, or the orthodox doctor? To these questions there can only be one reply. These are not mere opinions-they are facts; not an empty theory, but the actual history of learning, as known by all the world, and as represented to us in irrefragable documents. Unless prepossessed by the authority of M. Guizot, the reader certainly cannot complain that I have eschewed questions of history, or claimed his belief on my own bare word. Unhappily, mankind seemed doomed never to find the true road without going a long way round; thus the intellect, taking the very worst way of all, went in pursuit of subtilties and cavils, forsaking the beaten track of reason and good sense. At the beginning of the twelfth century the evil had reached to such a height, that to apply a remedy was no slight undertaking; nor is it PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 411 easy to say how far matters might have gone, nor what evils would have ensued in various ways, had not Providence, who never abandons the care of the moral, any more than of the physical universe, raised up an extraordinary genius, who, rising to an immense height above the men of his age, reduced the chaos to order. Out of the undigested mass, by retrenching here, adding there, classifying and explaining, this man collected a fund of real learning. Persons acquainted with the history of learning at that time will readily understand that I speak of St. Thomas Aquinas. Rightly to appreciate the extraordinary merit of this great Doctor, we must view him in connection with the times and circumstances of which we are treating. Beholding in St. Thomas Aquinas one of the most luminous, most comprehensive, and most penetrating intellects that have ever adorned the human race, we are almost tempted to think that his appearance in the thirteenth century was inopportune; we regret that h' did not live in a more recent age, to enter the lists with the most illustrious men of whom modern Europe can boast. But, upon further reflection, we find that the human mind owes so much to him, we see so clearly the reason why his appearance at the time when Europe received his lectures was most opportune, that we have no other feeling left than one of profound admiration of the designs of Providence. What was the philosophy of his time? Amidst the strange compound of Greek and Arabian philosophy and of Christian ideas, what would have become of dialectics, metaphysics, and morality? We have already seen what sort of fruit began to grow out of such combinations, favored by a degree of ignorance unable to distinguish the real nature of things, and encouraged by pride that pretended to a knowledge of every thing. And yet the evil was only beginning; its further development would have been attended with symptoms still more alarming. Fortunately, this great man appeared; the first touch of his powerful hand advanced learning two or three centuries. He could not root out the evil, but at least he applied a remedy; owing to his indisputable superiority, his method and his learning soon won their way everywhere. He became, as it were, the centre of a grand system, round which all other scholastic writers were forced to revolve; he thus prevented a multitude of errors that without his intervention would have been almost inevitable. He found the schools in a state of complete anarchy; he reduced them to order; and on account of his angelic intellect, and his eminent sanctity, was looked up to as their sublime dictator. This is the view I take of the mission of St. Thomas; it will be viewed in the same light by all those who study his works, and do not content themselves with a hasty perusal of a biographical article respecting him. Now this man was a Catholic, and the Catholic Church venerates him upon her altars, and I do not see that his mind was shackled by authority in matters of faith; it goes abroad freely amongst all the branches of knowledge; he unites in his person such extensive and profound acquirements as to appear a prodigy for the age in which he lived. We observe in St. Thomas, notwithstanding the purely scholastic method which he adopted, the same characteristic that we discover in all the eminent Catholic writers of the times. He reasons much; but it is easy to see that he does not trust entirely to his reason, but proceeds with that wise diffidence which is an unequivocal sign of real learning. He avails himself of the doctrines of Aristotle; but evidently would have made less use of them, and more of the Fathers, but for his leading idea, which was, to make the philosophy of his time subservient to the defence of religion. The reader must not suppose that his metaphysics and moral philosophy are a congeries of inexplicable enigmas, as a knowledge of the period at which he wrote might lead us to apprehend. Nothing of the kind; and any one who entertains such an idea has evidently not spent much time in the study of his writings. 4f2 "PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. His metaphysical works, it must be acknowledged, make us perfectly acquainted with the dominant ideas of the time; but it is equally undeniable, that in every page we meet with the most luminous passages on the most complicated questions of ideology, ontology, cosmology, and psychology; so much so, that we almost imagine we are reading the works of a philosopher who wrote after the fullest development of the sciences had been attained What his political ideas were, we Lave already seen; were it necessary, and did the nature of the present work permit, I might here produce many fragments from his Treatise on Laws and on Justice, distinguished for such solid principles, such lofty views, so profound a knowledge of the nature of society, that they would occupy an honorable position amongst the best works on legislation written in modern times. His treatises on virtues and vices, whether considered generally, or in detail, exhaust the subject, and defy all subsequent writers to produce a single idea of any importance that has not been already either developed, or at least suggested in them. Above all, his works are remarkable for moderation and extreme reserve in doctrinal expositions, in which respect they are eminently conformable to the spirit of Catholicity; and assuredly if all writers had followed in his footsteps, the field of science would have presented us with an assembly of sages, and would not have been converted into a blood-stained arena for furious combatants. Such is his modesty, that he does not relate a single incident in his life, private or public; from him we hear nothing but the language of enlightened reason, calmly dispensing its treasures: the man, with his fame, his misfortunes, his labors, and all his vain pretensions, with which other writers are wont to weary us, never appears for an instant. (41) CHAPTER LXXII. ON THE PROGRESS OF THE HUMAN MIND FROM THE ELEVENTH CENTURY TO THE PRESENT TIME. I THINK I have satisfactorily vindicated the Catholic Church from the reproaches cast upon her by her enemies, for her conduct during the eleventh and twelfth centuries in reference to the development bf the human mind. Let us now take a rapid survey of the march of intellect up to our own times, and see what titles Protestantism can produce to the gratitude of the friends of progress in human knowledge. If I mistake not, the following are the phases through which the human mind has passed, since the revival of learning in the eleventh century. First came the epoch of subtilties, with its heaps of crude erudition; then the age of criticism, with appropriate attempts at grave controversies on the meaning of records and monuments; and finally came the reflecting age, and the inauguration of the philosophical period. The eleventh and succeeding centuries, to the sixteenth, were characterized by a fondness for dialectics and erudite trifles; criticism and controversy formed the distinctive characteristics of the sixteenth, and part of the seventeenth centuries; the philosophical spirit began to prevail towards the middle of the seventeenth, and continued to our own time. Now of what advantage was Protestantism to learning? None; Pro. testantism found learning already accumulated-this I can easily proveErasmus and Louis Vives shone in the time of Luther. Did Protestantism promote the study of criticism? Yes; just as an epidemic that decimates nations aids the progress of the medicinal art. But we must not suppose that the taste for this kind of literary labor would not have been disseminated withoutthe aid of the pseudo-Reformation. As monuments came PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 413 to light, as a knowledge of languages became more general, as the public acquired clearer and more correct notions of history, people would naturally set themselves to discriminate between the apocryphal and the authentic. The necessary documents were at hand, and were studied unremittingly; for this was the favorite taste of the epoch. Under such circumstances, how is it possible there should have existed no desire to examine to what author, and to what age, such documents severally belonged; to investigate how far ignorance or dishonesty had falsified them, had taken from, or added to them? On this subject, I need only relate what took place relative to the famous decretals of Isidore Mercator. These decretals had been received, without opposition, during the centuries anterior to the fifteenth, owing to the want of antiquarian and critical research; but the moment that knowledge and facts began to accumulate, the edifice of imposture gave way. As early as the fifteenth century, Cardinal Cusa challenged the authenticity of certain decretals that had been supposed to be anterior to Pope Siricius; and the reflections of the learned Cardinal led the way to other attacks of a similar kind. A serious discussion arose, in which Protestants naturally took part; but it would unquestionably have been engaged in all the same, if Catholic writers had been left entirely to themselves. When the learned came to read the codes of Theodosius and Justinian, the works of antiquity, and collections of ecclesiastical records, they could not possibly fail to observe that the spurious decretals contained sentences and fragments belonging to an era posterior to the time to which they were referred; and when once such doubts had arisen, error was sure to be promptly exposed. We may say of controversy, what we have just said of criticism. There would have been no want of controversy, even if the unity of the faith had never been violated. In support of this assertion, the recollection of what occurred amongst the different schools of Catholics is quite conclusive. These schools were engaged in controversy amongst themselves, in the presence even of the common opponent: and we may rest assured that, if their attention had not been partially diverted by that enemy, their polemical discussions would have been maintained only with the greater energy and warmth. Protestants have no more the advantage over Catholics, as regards controversy than as regards criticism. However true it be that some of our theologians did not see the necessity of opposing the enemy with arms superior to those taken from the arsenal of Aristotelian philosophy, it is quite certain that a great number of them took up a sufficiently lofty position, and were thoroughly impressed with. the importance of the crisis, and urged the introduction of very great modifications into the course of theological studies. Bellarmin, Melchior Cano, Petau, and many others, were no way inferior to the most skilful Protestants, whatever may have been the boasted scientific merits of the defenders of error. The knowledge of the learned languages must have contributed in an extraordinary degree to the progress of critical and controversial learning. Now I do not see that Catholics were behind others in the knowledge of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. Anthony de Nebrija, Erasmus, Louis Vives, Lawrence Villa, Leonardus Aretinus, Cardinal Bembo, Sadolet, Poggio, Melchior Cano, and many others, too numerous to mention; were they, I ask, trained in Protestantism? Did not the Popes, moreover, take the lead in this literary movement? Who patronized the learned with greater liberality? Who supplied them with more abundant resources? Who incurred greater expenses in the purchase of the best manuscripts? Nor let it be forgotten, that such was the taste for pure Latinity, that some among the learned objected to read the Vulgate, for fear of acquiring inelegant phrases. As regards Greek, we need only bear in mind the causes that led to its diffusion in Europe, to be convinced that the progress made in the knowledge of 2 x2 414 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. this language owes nothing whatever to the pseudo-Reformation. It is well known that, after the taking of Constantinople by the Turks, the literary remains of that unfortunate nation were brought to the coasts of Italy. In Italy the study of Greek was first seriously commenced; from Italy it spread to France, and to the other European states. Half a century before the appearance of Protestantism, this language was taught in Paris by the Italian Gregory de Tiferno. At the end of the fifteenth and beginning of the sixteenth centuries, Germany itself could boast of the celebrated John Reuchlin, who taught Greek with great applause, first at Orleans and Poictiers, and afterwards at Ingolstadt. Reuchlin, being on one occasion at Rome, so felicitously explained, and read with so pure an accent, a passage from Thucydides, in the presence of Argyropilus, that the latter, filled with admiration, exclaimed: "( Gracia nostra exilio transvolavit Alpes; our exiled Greece has crossed the Alps." Respecting Hebrew, I will transcribe a passage from the Abb6 Goujet: Protestants," says he, "would fain have it thought that they effected the revival of this language in Europe; but they are forced to acknowledge, that whatever they know of Hebrew they owe to the Catholics, who were their teachers, and the sources whence, even to this day, is obtained all that is most valuable in Oriental literature. John Reuchlin, who lived the greater part of his time in the fifteenth century, was unquestionably a Catholic, and one of the most skilful Hebrew scholars, and was also the first Christian who reduced the teaching of that language to a system. John Weissel of Groningen had taught him the elements of this language, and had himself pupils in whom he had awakened a love for this study. In like manner, it was by the exertions of Picus de Mirandula, who was a strict Catholic, that a taste for the study of Hebrew was revived in the West. At the time of the Council of Trent, most of the heretics who then knew that language had learned it in the bosom of the Church they had forsaken; and their vain subtilties respecting the meaning of the sacred text excited the faithful to still greater assiduity in the study of a language so well calculated to insure their own triumph and the defeat of their opponents. In devoting themselves to this branch of study, moreover, they were only following out the intentions of Pope Clement V., who, as early as the beginning of the fourteenth century, had ordained that Greek, and Hebrew, and even Arabic and Chaldean, should be publicly taught, for the benefit of foreigners, at Rome, at Paris, at Oxford, at Bologna, and at Salamanca. The design of this Pope, who so well knew the advantages resulting from well-conducted studies, was, to augment the learning of the Church by the study of languages, and to raise up doctors capable of defending her against every form of error. By means of these languages, and more especially of Hebrew, he intended to renew the study of the sacred books, that the latter, when read in the original, might appear more worthy of the Holy Spirit who inspired them, and by their combined grandeur and simplicity, when better known, awaken greater reverence for them; and that, without derogating from the respect due to the Latin version, it might be felt that an intimate acquaintance with the originals was peculiarly serviceable in confirming the faith of believers, and confuting heretics." (L'Abbe Goujet, Discours sur le renouvellement des Etudes, et principalement des Dludes ecclesiastiques depuis le quatorziene siecle.) One of the causes which contributed the most to the development of the human mind was the creation of great centres of instruction, collecting the most illustrious talents and learning, and diffusing rays of light in all directions. I know not how men could forget that this idea was not due to the pretended Reformation, seeing that most of the universities of Europe were established long before the birth of Luther. That of Oxford was established in 895; Cambridge in 1280; that of Prague, in Bohemia, in 1358; that of Louvain, in PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 415 Belgium, in 1425; that of Vienna, in Austria, in 1365; that of Ingolstadt, in Germany, in 1372; that of Leipsic in 1408; that of Basle, in Switzerlcnd, in 1.69; that of Salamanca in 1200; that of Alcala in 1517. It would be superfluous to notice the antiquity of the universities of Paris, of Bologna, of Ferrara, and of a great many others, which attained the highest renown long before the advent of Protestantism. The Popes, it is well known, took an active part in the establishment of universities, granting them privileges, and bestowing upon them the highest honors and distinctions. How can any one, then, venture to assert, that Rome has opposed the progress of learning and the sciences, in order to keep the people in darkness and ignorance? As if Divine Providence had intended to confound these future calumniators of His Church, Protestantism made its appearance precisely at the time when, under the auspices of a renowned Pope, the progress in the science, in literature and the arts was most active. Posterity, judging of our disputes with impartiality, will undoubtedly pass a severe sentence upon those pretended philosophers, who are constantly endeavoring to prove from history, that Catholicity has impeded the progress of the human mind, and that scientific progress has been all owing to the cry of liberty raised in central Germany. Yes; sensible men in future ages, like those of our own times, will form a correct judgment upon this subject, when they reflect that Luther began to propagate his errors in die age of Leo X. Certainly, the court of Rome.could not at that time be reproached with obscurantism. Rome was at the head of all progress, which she urged onwards with the most active zeal, the most ardent enthusiasm; so much so, indeed, that if she were censurable at all-if there were in her conduct any thing of which history should disapprove-it was rather that her march was too quick than too slow. Had another St. Bernard addressed Leo X., he would assuredly not have blamed him for abusing his authority to impede the march of the human intellect and the progress of learning. "The Reformation," says M. de Chateaubriand, "deeply imbued with the spirit of its founder-a coarse and jealous monk-declared itself the enemy of the arts. By prohibiting the exercise of the imaginative faculties, it clipped the wings of genius, and made her plod on foot. It raised an outcry against certain alms destined for the erection of the basilica of St. Peter for the use of the Christian world. Would the Greeks have refused the assistance solicited from their piety for the building of a temple to Minerva? Had the Reformation been completely successful from the beginning, it would have established, for a time at least, another species of barbarism: viewing as superstition the pomp of divine worship; as idolatry the chefs-d'oeuvre of sculpture, of architecture, and of painting, its tendency was to annihilate lofty eloquence and sublime poetry-to degrade taste, by repudiating its models-to introduce a dry, cold, and captious formality into the operations of the mind-to substitute in society affectation and materialism in lieu of ingenuousness and intellectuality, and to make machinery take the place of manual and mental operations. These are truths confirmed by everyday experience. "Amongst the various branches of the reformed religion, their approximation to the beautiful and sublime is always found to be proportioned to the amount of Catholic truth they have retained. In England, where an ecclesiastical hierarchy has been upheld, literature has had its classic era. Lutheranism preserves some sparks of imagination, which Calvinism aims at utterly extinguishing; and so on, till we come to Quakerism, which would reduce social life to unpolished manners and the practice of trades. Shakspeare, in all probability, was a Catholic; Milton has evidently imitated some parts of the poems of St. Avitus and Masenius; Klopstock has borrowed very largely from the faith of Rome. In our own days, in Germany, the high imaginative 41f6 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. powers have been put forth only when the spirit of Protestantism had begun to decline. It was in treating Catholic subjects that the genius of Goethe and Schiller was manifested; Rousseau and Madame de Stael are, indeed, illustrious exceptions to this rule; but were they Protestants after the model of the first disciples of Calvin? At this very day, painters, architects, and sculptors, of all the conflicting creeds, go to seek inspiration at Rome, where they find universal toleration. Europe, nay, the whole world, is covered with monuments of the Catholic religion. To it we are indebted for that Gothic architecture, which rivals in its details, and eclipses in its magnificence, the monuments of Greece. It is now three centuries since Protestantism arose.-it is powerful in England, in Germany, in America,-it is professed by millions of men,-and what has it erected? It can show only the ruins it has made; on which perhaps, it has planted gardens or built factories. Rebelling against the authority of tradition, the experience of centuries, and the venerable wisdom of ages, Protestantism let go its hold on the past, and planted a society without roots. Acknowledging for their founder a German monk of the sixteenth century, the reformers renounced the wonderful genealogy that unites Catholics, through a succession of great and holy men, with Jesus Christ Himself, and, through Him, with the patriarchs and the earliest of mankind. The Protestant era, from the first hours of its existence, refused all relationship with the era of that Leo who protected the civilized world against Attila, and also with the era of that other Leo, at whose coming barbarism vanished, and society, now no longer in need of defence, put on the ornaments of civilization." (Etud. Itistor.,. Francois I.) It is much to be regretted that the author of such noble sentiments, who so accurately describes the effects of Protestantism on literature and the arts, should have said, that " the Reformation was, properly speaking, philosophic truth, under the guise of Christianity, attacking religious truth." (Etzd. Histor., Preface.) What is the meaning of these words? We shall best understand them from the illustrious author's own explanation. " Religious truth," says he, " is the knowledge of one God manifested in a form of worship. Philosophic truth is the threefold knowledge of things intellectual, moral,, and natural." (Etud. Histor., Exposition.) It is difficult to imagine how any one who admits the truth of the Catholic religion, and, as a necessary consequence, the falsehood of Protestantism, can define the latter to be, philosophic truth at war with religious truth. In the natural, as well as in the supernatural, order of things, in philosophy as in religion, all truths come from God, all end in Him. There cannot, therefore, be any antagonism between truths of one order and truths of another order; between religious and true philosophy, between nature and grace, no antagonism is possible. Truth is that which is; for truth resides in beings themselves; we should rather say, it consists of beings themselves such as they exist, such as they are in their substance; and hence it is quite incorrect to say that philosophic truth has ever stood in antagonism to religious truth. According to the same author " Philosophic truth is neither more nor less than the independence of the human mind; its tendency being to make discoveries, and lead to perfection in the three sciences that come within its sphere, viz. the intellectual, the moral, and the natural. But philosophic truth," he continues, " looking forwards to the future, has stood in opposition to religious truth, which adheres to the past, owing to the immovable nature of the eternal principle upon which it is founded." (Etud. Histor., Exposition.) With all the respect due to the immortal author of the Genie (du Christianisme and of the Martyrs, I must take the liberty to observe, that we find here a lamentable confusion of ideas. The philosophic truth of which M. de'Chateaubriand here treats, must be either science itself, considered as an aggregate of truths, or a PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. 417 general knowledge, in which truth and error are commingled; or, in fine, the whole body of men of learning, considered as constituting a very influential class in society. In the first case, it is impossible for philosophic truth to be in antagonism to religious truth,-that is, to Catholicity; in the second case, the alleged opposition is nothing extraordinary, for error being in this ease mixed up with truth, will on some points be found to be opposed to Catholic faith; and, finally, as regards the third hypothesis, it is unfortunately too true, that many men, distinguished by their talents and erudition, have been opposed to Catholicity; but, on the other hand, as great a number of men equally eminent have triumphantly maintained the truth of Catholicity; hence it would be extremely illogical to affirm that philosophic truth, even in this sense, is opposed to religious truth. It is not my wish to give an unfavorable interpretation to the words of the illustrious writer; I rather incline to think, that, in his mind, philosophic truth is nothing but a spirit of independence considered in a general, vague, and undefined sense, and not as applied to any object in particular. This is the only way to reconcile assertions so different; for it is quite clear, that, after he had so severely condemned the Protestant Reformation, the writer could not proceed to admit that this same Reformation carried with it philosophic truth, properly so called, wherein it became opposed to Catholic doctrines. But, in this case, the language of the illustrious author is unquestionably wanting in precision; this, however, need not surprise us, as, upon reflection, we shall find that, in treating historico-philosophical subjects, precision is not to be expected from writers whose genius has been wont to soar into the highest regions on the wings of a sublime poetry. It was not either in Germany or in England, but in Catholic France, that the philosophical movement advanced with the greatest freedom and daring. Descartes, the founder of a new era in philosophy, that superseded the Aristotelian, and gave a fresh impulse to the study of logic, of physics, and metaphysics, was a Frenchman and a Catholic. The greater part of his most distinguished followers were also in communion with the Roman Church. Philosophy, then, in the highest sense of the word, owes nothing to Protestantism. Before Leibnitz, Germany could scarcely reckon a single philosopher of any note; and the English shools that attained to any thing like celebrity arose after Descartes' time. We shall find, upon reflection, that France was the centre of the philosophical movement from the end of the sixteenth century; and at that period all the Protestant countries were so backward in this kind of study, that the active progress of philosophy amongst the Catholics was scarcely noticed by them. In like manner, it was in the bosom of the Catholic Church that the taste arose for profound meditations on the secrets of the heart, and on the relations of the human mind to God and nature, and that sublime abstraction which concentrates man's faculties, sets him free from the body, and elevates him to those exalted regions that appear destined to be visited exclusively by celestial spirits. Is not mysticism, in its pursest, most refined, and most elevated form, found in our Catholic writers of the golden age? Since that time, what has been published that may not be met with in the works of St. Teresa, in those of St. John of the Cross, in the venerable Avila, in Louis de Grenada, and in Louis de Leon? And Pascal, that man of thought, one of the most vigorous geniuses of the seventeenth century, who was unhappily deceived for some time by a hypocritical and canting sect, was he a Protestant? Was it not he who laid the basis of that philosophico-religious school, whose investigations, directed at one time to the deepest questions of religion, at another to those of nature, or to the mysteries of the human heart, have surrounded truth with a flood of light? Do not the apologists of Christianity, whether Protestants or Catholics, when 53 418 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY. engaged in combating indifference or incredulity, avail themselves by prefer. ence of his Pensees? Authors who have written on the philosophy of history have perhaps surpassed all others in their eagerness to vilify the Church as the enemy of enlightenment, whilst they represent Protestantism as the great bul. wark of the rights of the mind. Now, gratitude alone should have induced them to proceed more circumspectly; they should not forget that the real founder of the philosophy of history was a Catholic, and that the first and best work ever written on this subject came from the pen of a Catholic Bishop. It was Bossuet, in his immortal Discours sur' Histoire Universelle, who first taught our modern thinkers to take a lofty survey of the human race; to embrace at one view all the events that have marked the course of ages, contemplating them in all their vastness and intimate connection, with all their phases, effects, and causes, and to draw from them salutary lessons for the instruction both of princes and people. Now, Bosspet was a Catholic, and, moreover, one of the most trenchant adversaries of the Protestant Reformation. His fame is heightened too by another work, in which he completely overthrows the doctrines of the innovators, by proving their continual variations, and demonstrating that theirs must be the way of error, seeing that variation is incompatible with truth. We may ask the abettors of Protestantism, if the Eagle of Meaux feels in his flight the fetters of the Catholic religion, when, glancing at the origin anc destiny of mankind, at the fall of our first parents and its consequences, on the revolutions of the East and West, he traces with such wonderful sublimity the designs of Divine Providence? As' regards the literary movement, I might almost consider myself relieved from all necessity of combating the reproaches cast upon Catholicity by its enemies. What, in fact, was the literature of all the Protestant countries together, at the time when Italy produced those orators and poets, who, in succeeding ages, have been universally received as models? Various descriptions of literature were already quite common in Catholic countries, that were not even known in England or Germany; and when, at a later period, an attempt was made to fill up the hiatus, no better means could be found for the purpose than to take for models the Spanish writers, who had been subject to Catholic obscurantism and the fires of the Inquisition. Neither the mind, the heart, nor the imagination of man owes any thing to Protestantism. Before the Reformation these were all in graceful and vigorous progress; after the Reformation, this progress continued in the bosom of the Catholic Church as successfully as before. Catholicity displays a bright array of illustrious men crowned with the glories they have won amidst the unanimous plaudits of all civilized nations. Whatever has been said of the tendency of our religion to enslave and hoodwink the mind, is but calumny. No; that which is born of light, cannot produce darkness; that which is the work of truth itself, need not fly from the sun's rays to conceal itself in the bowels of the earth. The daughter of heaven may walk in the brightness of day, may dare discussion, may gather around her all the brightest intellects; well assured that the more closely and attentively they see and contemplate heyl the more pure, the more beauteous and enrapturing will she appear. 419 CHAPTER LXXIII. SUMMARY. DECLARATION OF THE AUTHOR. HAVING reached the end of my difficult enterprise, let me be allowed to take a retrospective view of the vast space over which I have but just passed, like the traveller who rests after his labor. The fear of seeing religious schism introduced into my country; the sight of the efforts which were made to inculcate Protestant errors amongst us; the perusal of certain writings, wherein it was stated that the pretended Reformation had been favorable to the progress of nations,-such were the motives which inspired me with the idea of undertaking this work. My object was, to show that neither individuals nor society owe any thing to Protestantism, either in a religious, social, political, or literary point of view. I undertook to examine what history tells us, and what philosophy teaches us, on this point. I was not ignorant of the immense extent of the questions which I had to enter upon; I was far from flattering myself that I was able to clear them up in a becoming manner; nevertheless I set forth upon my journey, with that courage which is inspired by the love of truth, and the confidence that one is defending its cause. When considering the birth of Protestantism, I have endeavored to take as lofty a view as possible. I have rendered to men that justice which is due to them; I have attributed a large portion of the evil to the wretched condition of mankind, to the weakness of our minds, and to that inheritance of perverseness and ignorance which has been transmitted to us by the fall of our first parent. Luther, Calvin, and Zuinglius have disappeared from my eyes; placed in the immense picture of events, they have been viewed by me as small imperceptible figures. whose individuality was far from deserving the importance which was given to them at other periods. Honest in my convictions, and unreserved in my words, I have acknowledged with candor, but with sorrow, that there existed certain abuses, and that these abuses were taken as pretexts when it was wished to break the unity of the faith. I have allowed that a portion of the blame shall also fall upon men; but I have also pointed out, that the more you here lay stress upon the weakness and wickedness of man, the more do you illustrate the providence of Him who has promised to be with His Church till the consummation of ages. By the aid of reasoning and irrefragable experience, I have proved that the fundamental dogmas of Protestantism show little knowledge of the human mind, and were a fruitful source of errors and catastrophes. Then, turning my attention to the development of European civilization, I have made a continued comparison between Protestantism and Catholicity; and I believe that I may assert, that I have not hazarded any proposition of importance without having supported it by the evidence of historical facts. I have found it necessary to take a survey of all ages, dating from the commencement of Christianity, and to observe the different phases under which civilization has appeared; without this, it would have been impossible to give a complete vindication of the Catholic religion. The reader may have observed that the prevailing idea of the work is this: "Before Protestantism European civilization had reached all the development which was possible for it; Protestantism perverted the course of civilization, and produced immense evils in modern society; the progress which has been made since Protestantism, has been made not by it, but in spite of it." I have only consulted history, and I have taken extreme care not to pervert it; I have borne in mind this passage of holy writ: " Has God, then, need of thy falsehood?" The documents to which I refer are there; they are to be found in all libraries, ready to answer; read them, and judge for yourselves. 420 PROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICJTY. I am not aware, in the multitude of questions which have presented them. selves to me, and which it has been indispensable for me to examine, that I have resolved any in a manner not in conformity with the dogmas of the religion which I was desirous of defending. I am not aware that, in any passage of my book, I have laid down erroneous propositions, or expressed myself in ill-sounding terms. Before publishing my work, I submitted it to the examination of ecclesiastical authority; and without hesitation, I complied with the slightest hint on its part, purifying, correcting, and modifying what had been pointed out as worthy of purification, correction, or modification. Notwithstanding that, I submit my whole work to the judgment of the Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman Church; as soon as the Sovereign Pontiff, the Vicar of Jesus Christ upon earth, shall pronounce sentence against any one of my opinions, I will hasten to declare that I consider that opinion erroneous, and cease to profess it. NOTES. the Duke of Saxony, and was reduced to such NOTE 1, P. 26. misery, that he was compelled to carry wood, and do other similar things, to gain his fiveliTHE Iristory of the Variations is one of those hood. In his many disputes with the Zwingworks which exhaust their subject, and which lins, Luther did not belie his character; he do not admit of reply or addition. If this im-called them damned, fools, blasphemers. As mortal chef-d'ceuvre be read with attention, the he lavished such epithets on his dissenting cause of Protestantism, with respect to faith, is companions, we cannot be astonished that he forever decided: there is no middle way left called the doctors of Louvain beasts, pigs, Pabetween Catholicity and infidelity. Gibbon gacs, Epicureans, Atheists; and that he makes read it in his youth, and he became a Catholic, use of other expressions which decency will abandoning the Protestant religion in which not allow us to cite; and that, launching forth he had been brought up. When, at a later against the Pope, he says, "He is a mad wolf, period, he left the Catholic, Church, he did not agaist whom every one ought to take arms, withbecome a Protestant, but an unbeliever. My out waiting even for the order of the magistrates; readers will perhaps like to learn from the in this matter there can be no room leftfor repentmouth of this famous writer what he thought ance, except for not having been able to bury of the work of Bossuet, and the effect which the sword in his breast;" adding, "that all was produced on him by its perusal. These those who followed the Pope ought to be purare his words: "In the History of the Varia- sued like bandit-chiefs, were they kings or tions, an attack equally vigorous and well- emperors." Such was the spirit of tolerance directed," says he, "Bossuet shows, by a happy which animated Luther. And let it not be mixture of reasoning and narration, the errors, imained that this intolerance was confined to mistakes, uncertainties, and contradictions of him; it extended to all the party of the innoour first reformers, whose variations, as he vators, and its effects were cruelly felt. We learnedly maintains, bear the marks of error; have an unexceptionable witness of this truth while the uninterrupted unity of the Catholic in Melancthon, the beloved disciple of Luther, Church is a sign and testimony of infallible and one of the most distinguished men that truth. Iread,approved, andbelieved." (Gib- Protestantism has had. "I find myself under bon's Memoirs.) such oppression," wrote Melancthon to his friend Camerarius, "that I seem to'be in the NOTE 2, p. 27. cave of the Cyclops; it is almost impossible for me to explain to you my troubles; and It has been wished to represent Luther to us r me to epln to yu my t les a every moment I feel myself tempted to take as a man of lofty ideas, of noble and generous ight." These are" he says, in another feelings, and as a defender of the rights of the ignorant menwho know neither piety human race. Yet he himself has left us in his nor discipline; behold what they are who comnor discipline; behold what they are who comwritings the most striking testimony of the mnd, and you will understand that I am like violence of his character, of his disgusting Daniel in the lions'den." How, then, can it rudeness, and his savage intolerance. Henry e maintained that such an enterprise was VIII., king of England, undertook to refute guided by a generous idea, and that it was., a 5 e } w..guided by a generous idea, and that it was the book of Luther called De Captivitate Baby- really attempted to free the human mind? lonica; and behold the latter, irritated by such The intolerance of Calvin, sufficiently shown boldness, writes to the king, and calls him by the single fact mentioned in the text, is sacrilegious, mad, senseless, the grossest of allmanifested in his works at every page, by the pigs and of all asses. It is evident that Luther manner in whichhe treats his adversaries. paid but little regard to royalty; he did the same with respect to literary merit. Erasmus, ie s - o who was perhaps the most learned man of his en bll P s, dog and vile slaves of Satan. Such are the polite terms age, or who at least surpassed all others in the i a f he ot which abound in the writings of the famou~ variety of his knowledge, in the refinement and reformer. And how many wretched things Ifo'f~- /reformer. And how many wretched things eclat of his mind, was not better treated by the of the same kind could I not relate, if I did furious innovator, in spite of all the indulgence otear to d ut m for which the latter was indebted to him. As soon as Luther saw that Erasmus did not thinkNOTE 27 proper to be enrolled in the new sect, he at- O,. tacked him with so much violence, that the The Diet of Spires had'made a decree conlatter complained of it, saying, "that in his cerning the change of religion and worship, old age he was compelled to contend against a fourteen towns of the empire refused to submit savage beast, a furious wild boar." Luther to it, and presented a Protest; hence men bedid not confine himself to mere words; he gan to call the dissenters Protestants. As proceeded to acts. It was at his instigation this name is a condemnation of the separated that Carlostad was exiled from the states of chirches, they have several times attempted 2L 421 422 NOTES. to assume others, but always in vain; the reflect: it is, that with the exception of the Pro. names which they took were false, and false testant preacher, and a few others, who desire names do not last. What was their meaning to know more of the thing than is necessary, all when they called themselves Evangelicals? the crowd of heretics gave the name o' Catholics That they adhered to the Gospel alone? In to the Ronlans.-Habitavi in hsereticorum civithat case they ought rather to call themselves tatibus; et hoc propriis oculis vidi, propriis Biblicals; for it was not to the Gospel that audivi auribus, quod deberet ab heeterodoxis they professed to adhere, but to the Bible. ponderari, prceter prcedicantem, et pauculos qUi They are also sometimes called Reformers: plus sapiunt quam oportet sapere, totum hceretiand many people have been accustomed to call corum vnigue Catholicos vocat Romnlaos." Such Protestantism, reformlation; but it is enough to is the force of truth. The ideologists know pronounce this word, to feel how inappropriate well that these phenomena have deep causes, it is; religious revolution would be much more and that these arguments are something more proper. than subtilties. NOTE 4, p. 27. Count de Maistre, in. his work Du Pape, has NOT 5, P. developed this question of names in an inimi- So much has been said of abuses, the intable manner. Among his numerous observa- fluence which they may have had on the tions, there is one very just one: it is, that disasters which the Church suffered during the the Catholic Church alone has a positive and last centuries has been so much exaggerated, proper name, which she gives to herself, and and at the same time so much care has been which is given to her by the whole world. The taken, by hypocritical praise, to exalt the purity separated Churches have invented many, but of manners and strictness of discipline in the without the power of appropriating them.- primitive Church, that some people have at "Each one was free to take what name he last imagined a line of division between ancient pleased," says M. de Maistre; " Lais, in person, and modern times. These persons see in the might be able* to write upon her door, Hotel early times only truth and sanctity; they d'Artemise. The great point is, to compel attribute to the others only corruption and others to give us a particular name, which is falsehood; as if, in the early ages of the not so easy as to take it of our own authority." Church, all the faithful were angels-as if the Moreover, it must not be imagined that Church, at all times, had not errors. to correct Count de Maistre was the inventor of this and passions to control. With history in our argument; a long time before him St. Jerome hands, it would be easy to reduce these exagand St. Augustin had used it. "If you," says gerated ideas to their just value, to which St. Jerome, "hear them called Marcionites, Erasmus himself, certainly little disposed to Valentinians, Montanists, know that they are exculpate his contemporaries, does justice. He not the Church of Christ, but the synagogue clearly shows us, in a parallel between his of Antichrist.-Si audieris nuncupari Marci- own times and those of the early ages of the onitas, Valentinianos, Montanenses, scito, non Church, how puerile and ill-founded was the Ecclesiam' Christi, sed Antichristi esse syna- desire, then so widely diffused, of exalting gogam." (Ilieron. lib. Adversus Luciferianos.) antiquity at the expense of the present time. "I am retained in the Church," says St. Au- We find a fragment of this parallel in the gustin, "by her very name of Catholic; for it works of Marchetti, among his observations was not without a cause that she alone, amid on Fleury's history. so many heresies, obtained that name. All the It would not be less curious to pass in review heretics desire to be called Catholics; yet if a the regulations made by the Church to check stranger asks them which is the church of the all kinds of abuses. The collections of councils Catholics, none of them venture to point out would furnish us with so many materials theretheir church or house.-Tenet me in Ecclesia upon, that many volumes would not suffice to ipsum Catholicae nomen, quod non sine causa make them known; or rather, these collections inter tam multas haereses, sic ipsa sola obtinu- themselves, with alarming bulk, from one end it, ut cum omnes heeretici se Catholicos dici to the other, are nothing but an evident proof velint, quaerenti tamen peregrino alicui, ubi ad of these two truths: 1st, that there have been Catholicam conveniatur, nullus hsereticorum, at all times many abuses to be corrected, an vel basilicam suam vel domum audeat osten- effect, in some measure necessary, of the weakdere." (St. Augustin.) What St. Augustin ness and corruption of human nature; 2dly, observed of his time is again realized with that at all periods the Church has labored to respect to the Protestants. I appeal to the correct these abuses, so that it may be affirmed testimony of those who have visited the coun- without hesitation, that you cannot point out tries where different communions exist. An one without immediately finding a canonical illustrious Spaniard of the seventeenth century, regulation by its side to check or punish it. who had lived a long time in Germany, tells These observations clearly show that Protestus, "They all. wish to be called Catholic and antism was not caused by abuses, but that it Apostolical; but notwithstanding this preten- was a great calamity, as it were, rendered sion, they are called Lutherans, or Calvinists. unavoidable by the fickleness of the human -Singuli volunt Catholici et Apostolici, sed mind, and the condition in which society was volunt, et ab aliis non hoc preetenso illis no- placed. In the same sense Jesus Christ has mine, sed Luterani potius aut Calviniani nomi- said, that it was necessary that there should be nantur." (Caramuel.) "I have dwelt in the scandal; not that any one in particular is towns of heretics," continues the same writer, forced to give it, but because such is the cor" and I have seen with my eyes and heard with ruption of the human heart, that the natural my ears a thing on which the heterodox should course of things must necessarily bring it. NOTES. 428 NOTE 6, p. 42. The Supreme See which cannot be judged by any other-St. Leo, in Nat. SS. Apost. This concert and unity, which are found in The Church set over and preferred to all the others Catholicity, are things which ought to fill every -Victor d'Utiq., in lib. de Perfect. sensible man with admiration and astonish- The first of all tle Sees-St. Prosper, in lib. de Inment, whatever his religious ideas may be. The stol Fountain-St. Ignatius, Epist. ad The Apostolic Fountain —St. Ignatius, Epist. ad If we do not suppose that the finger of God il Rom. in Subscript. hAre, how can we explain or understand the The most secure Citadel of all Catholic Communion continuance of the centre of unity in the see -Council of Rome under St. Gelasius. of Rime? So much has been said of the supremacy of the Pope, that it is very difficult NOTE 7. p. 45. to add any thing new; but perhaps our readers I have said that the most distinguished Prowill not be displeased to see a passage of St. testants have felt the void which is found in Francis de Sales, where the various remarkable all sects separated from the Catholic Church. titles given to the Sovereign Pontiff and to his I am about to give proofs of this assertion, see, by the Church in ancient times, are col- which perhaps some persons may consider halected. This work of the holy Bishop is worthy zardous. Luther, writing to Zwinglius, said, of being introduced, not only because it in- " If the world lasts for a long time, it will be terests the curiosity, but also because it fur- again necessary, on account of the different nishes matter for grave reflection, which we interpretations which are now given to the leave to the reader. Scriptures, to receive the decrees of Councils, TITLES OF TIlE POPE. and take refuge in them, in order to preserve Most Holy Bishop of the Catholic Church-Council the unity of the faith.-Si diutius steterit of Soissons, of 300 Bishops. mundus, iterum erit necessarium, propter diMost Holy and Blessed Patriarch-Ibid., t. vii., versas Scripturme interpretationes quee nune Council. sunt, ad conservandam fidei unitatem, ut conMost Blessed Lord-St. Augustine, Ep. 95. ciliorum decreta recipiamus, atque ad ea conUniversal Patriarch-St. Leo, P., Ep. 62. fu iamus " Chief of the Church in the World-Innoc. ad P. P. Concil. M tlle vit. wrdImcMelancthon, deploring the fatal results of The Bishop elevated to the Apostolic eminence-St. the want of spiritual jurisdiction, said, " There Cyprian, Ep. 3,12. will result from it a liberty useless to the Father of' Fathers-Council of Chalcedon, Sess. iii. world;" and in another place he utters these Sovereign Pontiff of Bishops-if d. in prsef. remarkable words: "There are'required in the Sovereign PriestCouncil of Chto maintalcedon, Ses. xvi Prince of Priests-Stephen, Bishop of Carthtge. Church inspectors, to maintain order, to obPrefect of the house of God and Guardian of the serve attentively those who are called to the Lord s Vineyard-Council of Carthage, Ep. to ecclesiastical ministry, to watch over the docDamasus. trine of priests, and pronounce ecclesiastical Vicar of Jesus Christ. Confirmer of the Faith of Vicar of tesis SthrJistoCenprfri ofng ad Da- judgments; so that if bishops did not exist, masum. it would be necessary to create them. The High-Priest-Valentinian, and all antiquity with monarchy of the Pope would be of great utility him. to preserve among such various nations uniformThe Sovereign Pontiff —Council of Chalcedon, in ity of doctrine." T Epince ad Thodos. Imper. Let us hear Calvin: "God has placed the The Prince of Bishops-Ibid. The Ieir of the Apostles-St. Bern., lib. de Consid. seat of his worship in the centre of the earth, Abraham by the Patriarchate-St. Ambrose, in 1 and has placed there only one Pontiff, whom Tim iii. all may regard, the better to preserve unity.Melch sedech by ordination-Council of Chalcedon, Cultus sui sedem in medio terrea collocavit, illi Epist. ad Leonem. nt.it Moses by authority-St. Bernard, Epist. 190. unu Antstcem prfct, que omnes resp Samuel by jurisdiction-Id. ib., et in lib. de Con- cerent, quo melius in unitate continerentur."sider. (Calvin, Inst. 6, ~ 11.) Peter by power-Ibid. "I have also," says Beza, "been long and Christ by unction-Ibid. greatly tormented by the same thoughts which The Shepherd of the Fold of Jesus Christ-Id. lib.y t ii. de Consider. you describe to me. I see our people wander Key-Bearer of the Iouse of God-Id. ibid. c. viii. at the mercy of every wind of doctrine, and Th'. Shepherd of all Shepherds-Ibid. after having been raised up, fall sometimes on The Pontiff called to the plentitude of power-Ibid. one side, and sometimes on the other. What St. Peter was the Mouth of Jesus Christ-St. Chry- they think of religion to-day you may know; sost. IIom. ii., in Div. Serm. The Mouth and Head of the Apostleship-Orig., what they will think of it to-morrow you canHEom. Iv. in Matth. not affirm. On'what point of religion are the The Cathedra and Principal Church-St. Cypr., Ep. Churches which have declared war against the lv. ad Cornel. Pope agreed? Examine all, from beginning to The Source of Sacerdotal Unity-Id., Epist. iii. 2. one thi ed The Bond of Unity-Id. ibid. iv. 2. end, you will hardlyfind one thing affrmed by The Church where resides the chief power (potentior the one which the other does not directly cry out principalitas)-Id. ibid. iii. 8. against as imz)iety. —Exercuerunt me diu et The Chu'rch the Root and Mother of all the others- multum illae ipsa) quas describis cogitationes. St. Anaclet. Papa, Epist. ad omnes Episc. et Video nostros palantes omni doctrinae vento, Fideles. s The See on which our Lord has built the Universalet n altum sublatos modo ad an odo a Church-St. Damasus, Epist. ad Univ. Episcop. i11am partem deferri. Horum, quae sit hodie The Cardinal Point and Head of all the Churches- de religione sententia scire fortasse possis; sed St. Marcellinus, R. Epist. ad Episc. Antioch. quse eras de eadem futura sit opinio, neque ta The Refuge of Bishops-Cone. Alex., Epist. ad certo affirmare queas. In quo tandem reliFelic. P. fhe Supreme Apostolic See- St. Athanasius. ions capte congrunt iter se Ecclesie, qua The Pres;ding Church-Emperor Justin., inlib. viii., Romano Pontifici bellum indixerunt? A caCod. de Sum. Trinit. pite ad calcem si percurras omnia, nihil prope 424 NOTES. modum reperias ab uno affirmari, quod alter sions; the religious communities themselves, statim non impium esse clamitet." (Th. Bez. the objects of so much aversion to.so many EXpist. ad Andream Dudit.) people, were to him highly respectable. These Grotius, one of the most learned of Protest- anticipations with respect to the religious ideas ants, also felt the weakness of the foundation of this great man have been more and more on which the separated sects repose. Many confirmed by one of his posthumous works, people have believed that he died a Catholic. published for the first time at Paris in 1819. The Protestants accused him of having the The Exposition of the Doctrine of Leibnitz on intention of embracing the Roman faith; and Religion, followed by Thoughts extracted ft om the Catholics, who had relations with him at the writings of the same Author, by AM. E.Eery, Paris, thought the same thing. It is said that formerly General Superior of St. Sulpice, conthe celebrated Petau, the friend of Grotius, at tains the posthumous work of Leibnitz, wherethe news of his death, said mass for him; an of the title, in the original manuscript, is, anecdote the truth of which I do not guaran- Theological System. The commencement of tee. It is certain that Grotius, in his work this work, remarkable for its seriousness and entitled De Antichristo, does not think, with simplicity, is certainly worthy of the great other Protestants, that the Pope is Antichrist. soul of this distinguished thinker. It is this: It is certain that, in his work entitled Votumn "After having long and profoundly studied pro Pace Ecclesioe, he says, without circumlo- religious controversies, after having implored cution, "that without the supremacy of the the divine assistance, and laid aside, as far as Pope, it is impossible to put an end to dis- it is possible for man, all- spirit of party, I putes;" and he alleges the example of the have considered myself as a neophyte come Protestants: "as it happens," says he, "among from the new world, and one who had not yet the Protestants." It is certain that, in his embraced an opinion; behold, therefore, the posthumous work, ]livetiani Apologetici Dis- conclusions at which I have arrived, and what cussio, he openly lays down the fundamental appeared to me, out of all that I have examprinciple of Catholicity, namely, that "the ined, worthy to be received by all unprejudiced dogmas of faith should be decided by tradition men, as what is most conformable to the holy and the authority of the Church, and not by Scriptures and respectable antiquity; I will the holy Scriptures only." even say, to right reason and the most certain The conversion of the celebrated Protestant historical facts." Papin, which made so much noise, is another Leibnitz afterwards lays down the existence proof of what we are endeavoring to show. of God, the Incarnation, the Trinity, and the Papin reflected on the fundamental principle other dogmas of Christianity; he adopts with of Protestantism, and on the contradiction candor, and defends with much learning, the which exists between this principle and the doctrine of the Catholic Church on tradition, intolerance of Protestants, who, relying only the sacraments, the sacrifice of the Mass, the on private judgment, yet have recourse to respect paid to relics and holy images, the authority for self-preservation. He reasoned Church hierarchy, and the supremacy of the as follows: "If the principle of authority, Pope. He adds, "In all cases which do not which they attempt to adopt, is innocent and admit the delay of the convocation of a genlegitimate, it condemns their origin, wherein eral Council, or which do not deserve to be they refused to submit to the authority of the considered therein, it must be admitted that Catholic Church; but if the principle of pri- the first of the Bishops, or the Sovereign vate judgment, which they embraced in the Pontiff, has the same power as the whole beginning, was right and just, this is enough Church." to condemn the principle of authority invented by them for the purpose of avoiding its ex-NOTE 8 p. 49. cesses; for this principle opens and smooths the way to the greatest disorders of impiety." Some. persons may suppose that what we Puffendorf, who will certainly not be accused have said with respect to the emptiness of of coldness when attacking Catholicity, could human knowledge and the weakness of our not help paying his tribute also to the truth, intellect, has been said only for the purpose of when, in a confession for which all Catholics making the necessity of a rule in matters of ought to thank him, he says, "The suppres- faith more sensibly felt. It is not so. It sion of the authority of the Pope has sowed would be easy for me to insert here a long list endless germs of discord in the world: as of texts, drawn from the writings of the most there is no longer any sovereign authority to illustrious men of ancient and modern times, terminate the disputes which arise on all sides, who have insisted upon this very point. I will we have seen the Protestants split among them- only quote here an excellent passage from an selves, and tear their bowels with their own illustrious Spaniard, one of the greatest men hands." (Puffendorf, de Monarch. Pont. Ro- of the sixteenth century, Louis Vives. "Jam man.) mens ipea, suprema animi et celsissima pars, Leibnitz, that great man, who, according to videbit quantopere sit tun natura sua tarda ac the expression of Fontenelle, advanced all prepedita, turn tenebris peccati cceca, et a docsciences, also acknowledged the weakness of trina, usu, ac solertia imperita et rudis, ut tne Protestantism, and the organizing power which ea quidenl quce videt, quceque manibus contrectat, belongs to the Catholic Church. We know ctjusnmodi sint, alt quidfiant assequatur, nedum that, far from participating in the anger of ut in abdito illa naturce arcana possitpenetrare; Protestants against the Pope, he regarded the sapienterque ab Aristotele illa est posita sentenreligious supremacy of Rome with the most tia: Mentem nostram ad manifestissima naturce lively sympathy. He openly avows the supe- non aliter habere se, qunan noctuae oculumn ad riority of the Catholic over the Protestant mis- lumen solis. Ea omnia, quw universum homi NOTES. 425 tam genus novit, quota sunt pars eorum qu s of their own strength, these men pursued truth ignoramus? Nec solum id in universitate ar- even to the abyss; there, to use the expression tium est verum, sed in singulis earum, in of an illustrious contemporary poet, the torch quarum nulla tantum est humanum ingenium was extinguished in their hands; lost in an progressum, ut ad medium pervenerit, etiam in obscure labyrinth, they were then abandoned infimis illis ac villissimis; ut nihil existimetur to the mercy of their fancies and inspirations; verius esse dictum ab Academicis quam Scire it was thus that reality gave place to the beau nihil." (Ludovic. Vives, de Concordia et Dis- tiful dreams of their genius. cordia, lib. iv. c. iii.) So thought this great man, who, to vast erudition in sacred and pro- NOTE 10, p. 54. fane things, added profound meditation on the human intellect itself; who followed the pro- Nothing is better for understanding and e gress of the sciences with an observant eye, pinin th a n to suey te ist of heresies; and undertook to regenerate them, as his writ- i tha tos te htory o heree ings prove. I regret that [ cannot copy his a history which we owe to the Church, to the words at length, as well those in the passage extreme care which she has taken to define and which I have just cited, as those of his im- lassifyerrors. mortal work on the causes of the decline of himself the legislator of the Jews, the renothe arts' and sciences, and on the manner of vator of the world, and the paraclete, while teaching them. If any one complain that I paying a worship of latria to his mistress have told some truths as to the weakness of Helena, under the name of Minerva down to our minds, and fear lest this should impede the Hermann, preching the massacre of all the progress of knowledge by checking its flights, priests and all the gistrates of the world, I will remind him that the best way of proiot- and affirming that he was the real son of God; I will remind him that the best way of promot- picture, very unpleasant to behold, I ing the progress of our minds is, to give them a vast picture, very unpleasant to behold, I a knowledge p of themselves. On this point, acknowledge, if it were only on account of the a knowledge of themselves. On this point,eravagances with which it abounds, presents the profound sentence of Seneca may be quot-e with which it abounds, presents ed: "I know that many persons would have itself to the observer, and suggests to him very grave and profound reflections on the attained to wisdom, if they had not presumed very grave ound r ns th that they already possessed it." "Puto multose wisdom of Catholicity, in atthat they already possessed it." " Puto multosreal character of the human mind; there it is ad sapientiam protuisse pervenire, nisi se jam te t, i ceta ases t subject this increderent perveni~ss." tempting, in certain cases, to subject this increderent perveni~e.constant spirit to rule. NOTE 9, p. 53. Dense clouds surround the intellect as soon NOTE 11, P. 57. as it approaches the first principles of the If any persons find difficulty in persuading sciences. I have said that even the mathe- themselves that illusion and fanaticism are, as matics, the clearness and certainty of which it were, in their proper element among Prohave become proverbial, are not exempted from testants, behold the irresistible testimony of this universal rule. The infinitesimal calcula- facts in aid of our assertion. This subject tion, which, in the present state of science, would furnish large volumes; but I must be may be said to play the leading part, never- content with a rapid glance. I begin with theless depends on a few ideas which, up to Luther. Is it possible to carry raving further this time, have not been well explained by any than to pretend to have been taught by the one-ideas with respect to limits. I do not devil, to boast of it, and to found new docwish to throw any doubt on the certainty of trines on so powerful an authority? Yet this this calculation: I only wish to show, that, if was the raving of Luther himself, the founder it were attempted to examine the ideas which of Protestantism, who has left us in his works are as it were the elements of it, before the the evidence of his interview with Satan.tribunal of metaphysical philosophy, the con- Whether the apparition was real, or produced sequence would be, that shades would he cast by the dreams of a night agitated by fever, it upon their certainty. Without going further is impossible to carry fanaticism further than than the elementary part of science, we might to boast of having had such a master. Luther discover some points which would not bear a tells us himself that he had many colloquies continued metaphysical and ideological analy- with the devil; but what is above all worthy sis without injury: a thing which it would be of attention is, the vision in which, as he very easy to prove by example, if the nature relates in the most serious manner, Satan, by of this work allowed it. We may recommend his arguments, compelled him to proscribe to the reader on this subject, the valuable private masses. He gives us a lively descripletter addressed by the Spanish Jesuit, Exim- tion of this adventure. He wakes in the mideno, a distinguished philosopher and mathe- die of the night; Satan appears to him.matician, to his friend, Juan Andres; he will Luther is seized with horror; he sweats, he there find some appropriate observations made trembles; his heart beats in a fearful manner. by a man who certainly will not be rejected on Nevertheless the discussion begins, and the the ground of incompetency. It is in Latin, devil, like a good disputant, presses him so and is called Epistola ad clarissimum virum hard with his arguments, that he leaves him Joannem Andreeiun without reply. Luther is'conquered; which As to the other sciences, it is not necessary ought not to astonish us, since he tells us that to say much to prove that their first principles the logic of the devil was accompanied by a are surrounded with darkness; and it may be voice so alarming, that the blood froze in his said that the brilliapt reveries of the most veins. " I then understood," says this wretchillustrious men have had no other source than ed being, "how it often happens that people this very obscurity. Led away by the feeling die at the break of day; it is because the devil 54 2L2 426 NOTES. Is able to kill or suffocate men; and without to distribute them. All his disciples are cotgoing so far as that, when he disputes with pelled to eat in common, to live in perfect them, he places them in such embarrassment, equality, and to prepare for the war which they that he can thus occasion their death. I have would have to undertake, quitting Mount Sion, often experienced this myself." This passage as he himself said, to subject all the natioits of is certainly curious. the earth to his power. He at length dies in a The phantom which appeared to Zwinglius, rash attempt, wherein, like another Gideon, the founder of Protestantism in Switzerland, he undertook nothing less than to exterminate affords us another example of extravagance no the army of the impious with a handful of less absurd. This heresiarch wished to deny men. Mathias immediately found an heir to the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucha- his fanaticism in Becold, perhaps better known list; he pretended that what exists under under the name of John of Leyden. This the consecrated species is only a sign. As the fanatic, a tailor by trade, ran naked through authority of the sacred text, which clearly ex- the streets of Munster, crying out, "Behold, the presses the contrary, embarrassed him, behold, king of Sion comes." He returned to his house, suddenly, at the moment when he imagined shut himself up there for three days; and that he was disputing with the secretary of the when the people came to inquire for him, he town, a white or black phantom, so he tells us pretended that he could not speak; like another himself, appeared to him, and showed him a Zachary, he made signs that he wanted writmeans. This pleasant anecdote we have from ing materials, and wrote that it had been reZwinglius himself vealed to him by God, that the people should Who does not regret to see such a man as be governed by judges, in imitation of the Melanethon also given up to the prejudices and people of Israel. He named twelve judges, manias of the most ridiculous superstition, choosing the men who were the most attached stupidly credulous with respect to dreams, ex- to himself; and until the authority of the new traordinary phenomena, and astrological prog- magistrates had been acknowledged, he took nostics? Read his letters, which are filled the precaution not to allow himself to be seen with such pitiful things. At the time when by any body. Already was the authority of the diet of Augsburg was held, Melancthon the new prophet secured in a certain manner; regarded as favourable presages for the new but not content with the real command, he gospel an inundation of the Tiber, the birth at desired to surround himself with pomp and Rome of a monstrous mule with a crane's foot, majesty; he proposed nothing less than to and that of a calf with two heads in the terri- have himself proclaimed king. Now the blindtory of Augsburg,-events which to him were ness of the sectarian fanatics was so great, the undoubted announcements of a change in that it was not difficult for hilA to complete his the universe, and particularly of the approach- mad enterprise; it was enough for him to play ingruin of Rome by the power of schism. He off a gross farce. A goldsmith who had an himself makes the horoscope of his daughter, understanding with the aspirant to royalty, and he trembles for her because Mars presents and was also initiated in the art of prophecy, an alarming aspect;.he is not the less alarmed presented himself before the judges of Israel, at the tail of a comet appearing within the and spoke to them thus: "Behold, this is the limits of the north. The astrologers had pre- will of the Lord God, the Eternal: as in other dieted that in autumn the stars would be more times I established Saul over Israel, and after favorable to ecclesiastical disputes; this prog- him David, who was only a simple shepherd, nostic sufficed to console him for the slowness so I now establish my prophet Becold king of of the conferences of Augsburg on the subject Sion." The judges would not resolve on abof religion: we see, moreover, that his friends dication; but Becold assured them that he also -that is, the leaders of the party-allowed had had the same vision, that he had concealed themselves to be ruled by the same powerful it from humility, but that God having spoken reasons. As if he had not troubles enough, by another prophet, it was necessary for him it is predicted that Melancthon will be ship- to resign himself to mount the throne, and wrecked in the Baltic; he avoids sailing on accomplish the orders of the MJost High. The those fatal waters. Certain Franciscans had judges persisted in wishing to call the people prophesied that the power of the Pope was together; they assembled in the market-place; about to decline, and then to fall for ever; also there a prophet, on the part of God, presented that, in the year 1600, the Turks were to be- to Becold a drawn sword, as a sign of the come masters of Italy and Germany; Melanc- power of justice, which was conferred on hin thon boasts of having the original prophecy in over all the earth, to extend to the four quarters his possession; moreover, the earthquakes of the world the empire of Sion; he was prowhich occur confirm him in his belief. claimed kingwith the most boisterous joy, and The human mind had but just set itself up solemnly crowned on the 24th of June, 1534. as the only judge of faith, when the atrocities As he had espoused the wife of his predecesof the most furious fanaticism already inun- sor, he raised her to the royal dignity; but dated Germany with blood. Mathias Harlem, while reserving to her the exclusive privilege the Anabaptist, at the head of a ferocious troop, of being queen, he continued to have sevenorders the churches to be sacked, the sacred teen wives, in conformity with the holy liberty ornaments to be broken in pieces, and all which he had proclaimed in this matter. The books, except the Bible, to be burnt, as impi- orgies, assassinations, atrocities, and ravings ous or useless. Established at Munster, which of all kinds which followed cannot be related; lie calls Mont Sion, he causes all the gold, it may be affirmed that the sixteen months of silver, and precious stones possessed by the the reign of this madman were only a series inhabitants to be brought to him, and places of crimes. The Catholics cried out against them in a common treasury, and names deacons such horrible excesses. The Protestants cried WNTES. 427 out also; but who was to blame? Was it not? they who, after having proclaimed resistance NOTE 12, p. 60. to the authority of the Church, had thrown Nothing is more palpable than the difference the Bible into the midst of these wretched which exists on this point between Protestants men, at the risk of their heads being turned and Catholics. On both sides there are persons by the'ravings of individual interpretation, who consider themselves to be favored with and of precipitating them into projects as heavenly visions; but these visions render criminal as they were senseless? The Ana- Protestants proud, turbulent, and raving mad, baptists were well aware of this; and they while among- Catholics they increase the spirit were exceedingly indignant with Luther, who of humility, peace, and love. Even in that very condemned them in his writings; and indeed, sixteenth century, in which the fanaticism of what right had he, who had established the the Protestants agitated and stained Europe principle, to desire to check its consequences? with-blood, there lived in Spain a woman who, If Luther found in the Bible that the Pope in the judgment of unbelievers and Protese was Antichrist, if he arrogated to himself, of tnts, is certainly one of those who have been his own authority, the mission of destroying the most deeply infected with illusion and the reign of the Pope, by exhorting all the fanaticism; but has the supposed fanaticism of world to conspire against him, why could not this woman ever caused the spilling of a drop the Anabaptists say, in their turn, that they had of blood, or the shedding of a tear? Were intercourse with God, and had received the order her visions, like those of Protestants, orders to exterminate all the wicked, and to establish from heaven for the extermination of men? a new kingdom, in which were to be Hecn only After the desolate and horrible picture which wise, pious, and innocent mnen, having become I have given in the preceding note, perhaps the masters of all things. the reader will be glad to let his eyes rest Hermann preaching the massacre of all the upon a spectacle as peaceful as it is beautiful. priests and all the magistrates of the world; It is St. Theresa writing her own life out of David George proclaiming tot his doctrine pure obedience, and relating to us her visions alone was perfect, thatthatof the Old and New with angelic candor and ineffable sweetness. Testaments swas imperfect, and that he was the "The Lord (she says) willed that I should once true Son of God; Nicholas rejecting faith and have this vision: I saw near to me, on the left worship as useless, treading under foot the hand, an angel in a corporeal form; this is fundamental precepts of morality, and teaching what I do not usually see, except by a prodigy; that it was good to continue in sin, that grace although angels often present themselves to smight abound; HIacket pretending that the me without my seeing them, as I have said in spirit of the Messiah had descended upon him, the preceding vision. In this the Lord willed and sending two of his disciples to cry out in that I should see him in the following manner the streets of London, "Behold Christ coming he was not tall, but small and very beautiful, here winth a vase hn his hand!" Hacket him- his face all in a flame, and he seemed to be one sel c of cryingea ofut, angels very hight of the hierarchy, who in the agony of punishment, "Jehovah! Je- apparently are all on fire. Without doubt, he hovah! do you not see that the heavens open, was one of those who are called seraphim.and that Jesus Christ comes to deliver me?" Tes angels do not tell me their names; -but are not all these deplorable spectacles, and a I clearly see that there is so great a difference hundred ote that htent s amo thers that I might mbetweention, proofs some and others, sufficiently evident that the Protestant system that I do not know how to express it. I saw nourishes and inflames a fearful fanaticism? in his hands a long dart of gold, which apVenner, Fox, William Simpson, J. Naylor, peared to me to have some fire at the end of Count Zinzendorf, Wesley, Baron Swedenborg, th point. It seemed to me that the angel and other similar names, are sufficient to re- buried this dart from time to time in my heart, mind us of an assemblage of sects so extrava- and made it penetrate to my bowels, and that gant, and a series of crimes such as would fill when withdrawing it, he carried them away, volumes, which would afford us the most ridi- leavin ing e a inflamed with a great love of culous and the most odious pictures, the greatest God." (Vie de St. Therese, c. xxix. no. 11.) miseries and the most deplorable errors of the Another example: "At this moment I see on human mind. I have not invented or exag- my head a dove very different from those of gerated. Open history, consult authors-I do earth; for this one had no feathers, but wings not mean Catholics, but Protestants, or what- as it were of the shell of mother of pearl, ever they may be-and you will every where which shone brightly. It was larger than a find a multitude of witnesses who depose to dove; it seemed to me that I heard the noise the truth of these facts; notorious facts, which of its wings. It moved them almost for the have taken place in the light of day, in great time of an Ave Maria. The soul was already capitals, and in times bordering on our own; in such a condition that, herself swooning and let it not be supposed that this abundant away, she also lost sight of this divine dove. source of illusion and fanaticism has been The mind grew tranquil with the presence of exhausted in the course of ages; it does not such a guest, although it seemed to me that so seem that it is yet near being dried up, and wonderful' a favor ought to fill it with perEurope appears condemned to hear the recital turbation and alarm; but as the soul began to of visions, such as those of Baron Swedenborg enjoy it, fear departed, repose came with enin the inn in London; and we shall still see joyment, and the mind remained in ecstacy." passports for heaven with three seals given out, ( ie, c. xxviii. no. 7.) It would be difficult Like those of Johanna Southcote. to find any thing more beautiful, expressed in more lively colors, and with a more amiable simplicity. It will not be out of place to copy 428 NOTES. here two other passages of a different kind, easy for me to cite a thousand examples, I wac which, while they enforce what we wish to compelled, for the sake of brevity, to confine shcw, may contribute to awaken the taste of myself to one, when selecting St. Theresa as our nation for a certain class of Spanish one of those who are the most distinguished in writers, who are every day falling into obliv- this respect, and because she was contemporary ion with us, while foreigners seek for them with the great aberrations of Protestantism. In with eagerness, and publish handsome editions fine, as she was a daughter of Spain, I seized of them. " I was once at office with all the the opportunity of recalling her to the memorest; my soul was suddenly fixed in attention, ries of Spaniards, who begin too much to forget and it seemed to me to be entirely as a clear her. minor without reverse or side, neither high nor low, but shining every where. In theNOTE 13 64 midst of it, Christ our Saviour presented him- P self to me, as I am accustomed to see Him. Some of the leaders of the Reformation have He appeared to me to be at once in all parts left suspicions that they taught with insincerity, of my soul. I saw Him as in a clear mirror, that they did not themselves believe what they and this mirror also (I cannot say how) was preached, and that they had no other object entirely imprinted on our Lord himself, by a than to deceive their proselytes. As I am uncommunication which I cannot describe-a willing to have it imputed to me that I have communication full of love. I know that this made this accusation rashly, I will adduce vision has been of great advantage to me every some proofs in support of my assertion. Let time that I recollect it, principally when I us hear Luther himself. "Often," he says, have just received communion. I was given "do I think within myself that I scarcely to understand that when a soul is in a state of know where I am, and whether I teach the mortal sin, this mirror is covered with great truth or not (Ssepe sic mecum cogito, propedarkness, and is extremely obscure, so that our modum nescio, quo loco sim, et utrum veritaLord cannot appear or be seen therein, although tem doceam, necne)." (Luther, Col. Isleb. de He is always present as giving being; as to Christo.) And it is the sam.e man who said: heretics, it is as if the mirror were broken, "It is certain that I have received my dogmas which is much worse than if it were obscured. from heaven. I will not allow you to judge of There is a great difference between seeing this my doctrine, neither you nor even the angels and telling it; it is difficult to make such a of heaven (Certum est dogmata mea habere thing understood. I repeat, that this has been me de coelo. Non sinam vel vos vel ipsos very profitable to me, and also very afflicting, angelos de ccelo de mea doctrina judicare)." on account of the view of the various offences (Luther, contra Ieg. Ang.) John Matthei, the by which I have obscured my soul, and have author of many writings on the life of Luther, been deprived of seeing my Lord." (Vie, c. and who is not scanty in eulogies on the xi. no. 4.) heresiarch, has preserved a very curious anecIn another place she explains a manner of dote touching the convictions of Luther. It seeing things in God; she represents the idea is this: "A preacher called John Musa reby an image so brilliant and sublime, that we lated to me that he one day complained to appear to be reading Malebranche, when de- Luther that he could not prevail on himself to veloping his famous system. believe what he taught to others:'Blessed be "We say that the Divinity is like a bright God (said Luther) that the same thing hap2pens diamond, infinitely larger than the world; or to others as to myself: I believed till nowt that rather like a mirror, as I have said of the soul THAT uwas a thing which happened only to me."' in another vision; except that here it is in a (Johann. Matthesius, cone. 12.) manner so sublime, that I know not how to The doctrines of infidelity were not long deexalt it sufficiently. All that we do is seen in layed; but would it be believed that they are this diamond, which contains all in itself; for found expressed in various parts of Luther's there is nothing which is not comprised in so own works? "It is likely," says he, speaking great a magnitude. It was alarming to me to of the dead, "that, except a few, they all sleep see in so short a time so many things assembled deprived of feeling." "I think that the dead in this bright diamond; and I am profoundly are buried in so ineffable and wonderful a sleep, afflicted every time that I think that things so that they feel or see less than those who sleep shocking as my sins appeared to me in this an ordinary sleep." "The souls of the dead most pure brightness." (Vie, c. xl. no. 7.) enter neither into purgatory nor into hell." Let us now suppose, with Protestants, that "The human soul sleeps; all its senses buried." all these visions were only pure illusions: at "There is no suffering in the abode of the least it is evident that they do not pervert ideas, dead." (" Verisimile est, exceptis pancis, olecorrupt morals, or disturb public order; and nes dormire insensibiles." "Ego puto mortuca assuredly, had they served only to inspire these sic ineffabili et miro somno sopitos, ut minus beautiful pages, we should not know how to sentiant aut videant, quam hi qui alias dormiregret the illusion. This is a confirmation of unt." "Animne mortuorum non ingrediuntur what I have said of the salutary effects which in purgatorium nec infernum." "Anima huthe Catholic principle produces in souls, by mana dormit, omnibus sensibus sepultis." preventing them from being blinded by pride, "Mortuorum locus cruciatus nullos habet.") or throwing themselves into dangerous courses. (Tom. ii. Epist. Lat. Isleb. fol. 44; t. vi Lat. This principle confines them to a sphere where Wittenberg. in cap. ii., cap. xxiii., c. xxv., c. it is impossible for them to injure any one; but xlii. et xlix. Genes. et t. iv. Lat. Wittenberg, it does not deprive them of any of their force fol. 109.) Persons were not wanting ready c"r energy to do good, supposing that the in- to receive such doctrines; and this teaching spiration is real. Although it would have been caused such ravages, that the Lutheran Brent NOTES. 429 sea, disciple and successor of Luther, hesitates and urges him, to embrace novelties, loving not to say: "Although no one among us public- rather to be thJ chief of a wandering and unly professes that the soul perishes with the body, disciplined band, than to be a disciple of the and that there is no resurrection of the dead, school of truth." In another place, at once nevertheless the impure and whollyprofane lives condemning all the dissenting sects, he had which they for the most part lead, show very said, "In religious matters it is necessary to clearly that they do not believe that there is adhere to those who are the established judges another life. Some even allow words of this of doctrine, and who have legitimate authority, kind to escape them, not only in the intoxication not to the most learned and the cleverest." of libations, but even when fasting, in their fa- From all that I have just said, it is clear miliar intercourse. (Et si inter nos nulla sit that if I accuse Protestantism of having been publica professio quod anima simul cum cor- one of the principal causes of infidelity in pore intereat, et quod non sit mortuorum Europe, I do not accuse it without reason. resurrectio, tamen impurissima et profanissima I repeat here, that it is by no means my intenilla vita, quam maxima pars hominum sectatur, tion to overlook the efforts of some Protestants perspicue indicat quod non sentiat vitam post to oppose infidelity; I do not assail persons, hanc. Nonnullis etiam tales voces, tam ebriis but things, and I honor merit wherever I find inter pocula, quam sobriis in familiaribus col- it. In fine, I will add, that if at the end of loquiis.)" (Brentius, Horn. 35, in cap. 20, Luc.) the seventeenth century a considerable number There were in this same sixteenth century of Protestants displayed a tendency towards some men who cared not to give their names Catholicity, we must seek the reason for it in to this or that sect, but who professed infidelity the progress which they saw infidelity making, and scepticism without disguise. We know -a progress which it was impossible to check, that the famous Gruet paid with his head for at least without holding fast to the anchor of his boldness in this way; and it was not the authority which the Catholic Church offered to Catholics who cut it off, but the Calvinists, the whole world. I cannot, without exceeding who were offended that this unhappy man had the limits which I have marked out for myself, taken the liberty to paint the character and give a circuinstantial detail of the corresponconduct of Calvin in their true colors. Gruet dence between Molanus and the Bishop of had also committed the crime of posting up Tyna, of Leibnitz and Bossuet. Readers who placards at Geneva, in which he charged the desire to become thoroughly acquainted with pretended reformers with inconsistency, on that affair, may examine it partly in the works account of the tyranny which they attempted of Bossuet himself, and partly in the interestto exercise over consciences, after having ing work of M. de Beausset, prefixed to some shaken off the yoke of authority on their own editions of Bossuet. account. This took place soon after the birth of Protestantism, as the sentence on Gruet was NOTE 14, P. 86. executed in 1549. Montaigne, who has been pointed out as one In order to form an idea of the state of of the first sceptics who acquired reputation in knowledge at the time of the appearance of Europe, carries the thing so far, that he does Christianity, and become convinced that there not even admit the natural law. " They are was nothing to be expected from the human,not serious (he says) ohen, to give some certainty mind abandoned to its own strength, it is to laws, they say that there are any las fixed, enough to recall to mind the monstrous sects perpetual, and immutable, which they call natu- which every where abounded in the first ages ral, which are impressed on the human race by of the Church, the doctrines whereof formed the condition of their peculiar essence." (Mon- the most shapeless, extravagant, and immoral taigne, Ess. 1. ii. c. 12.) compound that it is possible to conceive. The We' have already seen what Luther thought names of Cerinthus, Menander, Ebion, Saturof death, or at least the expression which ninus, Basilides, Nicolas, Carpocrates, Valenescaped him on this subject; and we cannot tinus, Marcion, Montanus, and so many others, be astonished after that, that Montaigne wished remind us of the sects in which delirium was to die like a real unbeliever, and that he says, connected with immorality. When we throw speaking of the terrible passage: "I plunge a glance over these philosophico-religious sects, my head, insensibly sunk in death, without con- we see that they were capable neither of considering or observing it, as in a siele.t and ob- ceiving a philosophical system with any degree scure depth, which swallows me up at once, of concert, nor of imagining a collection of stifles me in a moment with powerful sleep full doctrines arid practices to which the name of of insipidity and indolence." (Montaigne, 1. religion can be applied. These men overturned, iii. c. 9.) But this man, who wished that death mixed, and confounded all; Judaism, Chrisshould find him planting his cabbages, and tianity, and the recollections of the ancient without thinking of it (Je veux que la mort me schools, were all amalgamated in their deluded trouve plantant mes choux, mais sans me soucier heads; what they never forgot was, to give a d'elle), was not of the same opinion in his last loose rein to all kinds of corruption and obmoments. When he was near breathing his scenity. last, he wished that the holy sacrifice of the In the spectacle of these ages, a wide field Mass should be celebrated in his apartment, is opened to the conjectures of true philosophy. and he expired while making an effort to raise What would have become of human knowlhimself on his bed, in the act of adoring the edge, if Christianity had not come to enlighten sacred Host. We see that he had profited in the world with her celestial doctrines; if that his heart by some of his ideas with respect to divine religion, confounding the foolish pride the Christian religion. "It is pride," he had of man, had not come to show him how vaif said, " that leads man out of the common path, and senseless were his thoughts, and how far 430 NOTES. he was removed from the path of truth? It bus tenetur scriptum, pro concessa culpa dawti is remarkable that these same men, whose a domino sacramentis, quisquis ille fuerit, exaberrations make us shudder, gave themselves pediatur de venia jam securus. Enim vero si the name of Gnostics, on account of the immemor fidei dominus trascendisse convincisuperior knowledge with which they supposed tur quod juravit, ut is qui veniam acceperat, themselves to be endowed. We see that man probetur postmodum pro ea culpa qualicumque is at all times the same. supplicio cruciatus, dominus ille qui immemor fuit datae fidei, sit ab omnium communione NOTE 15, p. 115. suspensus. Iterum si servus de promissione venice datis sacramentis a domino jam securus I have thought that it would not be useless n ei ne s a umacia eui ttrnc ib hee wr frwdexire noluerit, ne sub tali contumacia requirens to transcribe here, word for word, the canons loum fuge, domino fortasse dispereat, egredi locum fugae, domino fortasse dispereat, egredi which I have mentioned in the text. My nolentem a domino eum liceat occupari, ut readers may thereby acquire for themselves a nam, qas retentatione servi quibuslicomplete knowledge of what is found there; bet mo molestiam aut calumniam ptiatur bet modis molestiam aut calumniam patiatur and there will be no room left to suppose that ecclesia fidem tamen dominus, quam pro conthe real sense of the regulations has been cessa venia dedit, nulla temeritate transcendat. perverted in the extracts which I have given. Quo i aut gentilis doinus fuerit, aut alterius CANONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS, sectse, qui a conventu ecclesie probatur extraneus, is qui servum repetit, personas requirat Which show the solicitude of the Church to bonse fidei Christianas, ut ipsi in persona inmprove the lot of slaves, and the various domini servo prsebeant sacramenta: quia ipsi means she has used to accomplish the aboli- possunt servare quod sacrum est, qui pro transtion of slavery: gressione ecclesiasticum metuunt disciplinam." # rI (Canon 22.) It is difficult to carry solicitude for the lot A penance is inrposed on the mistress who of slaves further. This document is very maltreats her slave (ancillam). curious. (Concilium Eliberitanum, anno 305.) (Convilium Eliberitanum, anno 305.) They forbid bishops to mutilate their slaves: "Si qua domina furore zeli accensa flagris they order that the duty of chastising then verberaverit ancillam suam, ita ut in tertium should be left to the judge of the town, who, diem animam cumn cruciatu effundat; eo quod nevertheless, could not cut off their hair, a incertum sit, voluntate an casu occiderit; si punishment which was considered too ignomivoluntate, post septemn annos, si casu, post niou. quinquennii tempora, acta legitima pcenitentia, (Coucilium Emeritense, anno 66.) ad communionem placuit admitti. Quod si i eais iets o s e infra tempora constituta fuerit infirmata, acci- " Si regalis pietas pro salute omnium suarum piat communionem." (Canon 5.) legum dignata est ponere decreta, cur religio It must be observed, that the word' anc cta per sancti concilii ordinem non habeat lam' mehns a slave properly so called, and instituta, quas omnino debent esse cavenda? not any kind of servant. This appears, indeed, Ideoque placuit huic sancto concilio, ut omnis from the words flagris verberaverit, which ex- potestas episcopalis odum suae ponat irse; press a chastisement reserved for slaves. nee pro quolibet excessu cuilibet ex familia, ecclesiae aliquod corporis membrorum sua They excommunicate the master who, of, his own ordinatione preesumat extirpare aut auferre. authority, beats his slave to death. Quod si talis emerserit culpa, advocato judice civitatis, ad examen ejus deducatur quod fac(Concilium Epaoense, anno 517.) tum fuisse asseritur. Et quia omnino justum t' Si quis servum proprium sine conscientia est, ut pontifex sievissimam non impendat vinjudicis occiderit, excommunicatione biennii dictan; quidquid coram judice verius patuerit, effusionem sanguinis expiabit." (Canon 34.) per disciplince severitatem absque turpi decal This same regulation is repeated in the 15th vatione maneat emendatum." (Canon 15.) canon of the 17th Council of Toledo, held in i94; even the words of the Council of Epaon Priests are forbidden to have their slaves are there copied with very slight change. mutilated. (Concilium Toletanum undecimum, anno 675.. (Ibid.) The slave guilty of an atrocious crie "His a uibus domini acramenta tractand was to escape corporeal punishment, by taking sunt, judicium sanguinis agitare non licet: et ref,.ge in a church. ref./e iu a church. ideo magnopere talium excessibus prohibendum "Servus reatu atrociore culpabiiis si ad ec- est, ne indiscrete praesumptionis motibus agi. clesiam confugerit, a corporabilibus tantum tati, aut quod morte plectendum est, sententia suppliciis excusetur. De capillis vero, vel propria judicare prsesumant, aut truncationes quocumque opere, placuit, a dominis juramenta quaslibet membrorum quibuslibet personis ant non exigi." (Canon 39.) per se inferant, aut inferendas prwecipiant. Quod si quisquam horum immemor prveceptoVery remarkable precantionts to prevent masters rum, aut ecclesia suae familiis, aut in quibuslifrom maltreating the slaves who had taken bet personis tale quid fecerit, et concessi ordinis refuge in churches. honore privatus, et loco suo, perpetuo damnnationis teneatur religatus ergastulo: cui tamen (Cncillum urelianense quintum, anno 549.) communio exeunti ex hac vita non neganda "De servis vero, qui pro qualibet culpa ad est, propter domini misericordiam, qui non vult ecclesie septa confugerint, id statuimus ob- peccatoris mortem, sed ut convertatur et vivat.' rervandum, ut, sicut in antiquis constitutioni- (Canon 6.) NOTES. 431 It should be remarked, that the word famli- The Church is charged with the defence of the lia, employed in the two last canons which enfranchised, whether they have been esnanciwe have just cited, should be understood of pated within her enclosure, whether they have plaves. The real meaning of this word is been so by letter or testament, or have gained clearly shown us by the 74th canon of the 4th their liberty by prescription. They restrain Council of Toledo. the arbitrariness of the judges towards these "De familiis ecclesixe constituere presbyte- unfortunate persons. It is decided that the ros et diaconos per parochias liceat..... ea Bishops shall take cognizance of these causes. tamen ratione ut antea manumnzissi libertatem..tamen ratione ut antea manunss liertatem (Concilium Matisconense secundum, anno 585.) status sui percipiant. We see this word employed in the same "Que dum postea universo ccetui secundum sense by Pope St. Gregory. (Epist. xliv.. 4.) consuetudinem recitata innotescerent, Praetextatus et Pappulus viri beatissimi dixerunt: A penance is imposed on the mtaster who kills Decernat itaque, et de miseris libertis vestrjn his slave of his oon authority. auctoritatis vigor insignis, qui ideo plus a judicibus affliguntur, quia sacris sunt commendati (Concilium Wormatiense, anno 868.) ecclesiis: ut si quas quispiam'dixerit contra "Si quis servum proprium sine conscientia eos actiones habere, non audeat eos magistrajudicum qui tale quid commiserit, quod morte tus contradere; sed in episcopi tantum judicio, sit dignum, occiderit, excommunicatione vel in cujus praesentia litem contestans, quee sunt peenitentia biennii, reatum sanguinis emenda- justitise ac veritatia- audiat. Indignum est bit." (Canon 38.) enim, ut hi qui in sacrosancta ecclesia jure " Si qua femina furore zeli accensa, flagris noscuntur legitimo manumissi, aut per epistoverberaverit ancillam suam, ita ut intra terti- lam, aut per testamentum, aut per longinquium diem animam suam cum cruciatu effundat, tatem temporis libertatis jure fruuntur, a quoeo quod incertum sit voluntate, an casu occi- libet injustissime inquietentur. Universa saderit; si voluntate, septem annos, si casu, per cerdotalis Congregatio dixit: Justum est, ut quinque annorum tempora legitimam peragat contra calumniatorum omnium versutias depoenitentiam." (Canon 39.) fendantur, qui patrocinium immortalis ecclesis concupiscunt. Et quicumque a nobis de libertis They check the violence of those who, to revenge latum decretum, superbie ausu proevaricare themselves for the asylum granted to sl,taves tent rit, irreparbili damnationis sue sentake possession of the goods of the Church. tenta feratur Sed si placueit episcopo ordinarium judicem, aut quemlibet alium ssecu(Concilium Arausicanum primum, anno 441.) larem, in audientiam eorum accersiri, cumr "Si quis autem mancipia clericorum pro libuerit fiat, et nullus alius audeat causas suis mancipiis ad ecclesiam fugientibus credi- pertractare libertorum nisi episcopus cujus derit occupanda, per omnes ecclesias districtis- interest, aut is cui idem audiendum tradidcrit." sima damnatione feriatur." (Canon 6.) (Canon 7.) 2 IL The defence of the freed is confided to the priests. (Ibid.) They check all attempts made against (Concilium Parisiensequintum, anno 614.) the liberty of slaves enfranchised by the Church, or who have been recommended to her "Liberti quorumcumque ingenuorum a sacerby owill. dotibus defensentur, nec ad publicum ulterius revocentur. Quod si quis ausu temerario eos " In ecelesia manumissos, vel per testamen- imprinere voluerit, aut ad publicum revocare, tum ecclesie commendatos, si qais in servitu- et admonitus per pontificem ad audientiam tem, vel obsequium, vel ad colonagiam conditio- venire neglexerit, aut emendre quod perpelem imprimere tentaverit, animadversione ec- travit distulerit, communione privetur." (Caclesiastica coerceatur." (Canon non 7.).) They secure the liberty of those who have re- The enfranchised recommended to the Churches ceived the benefit of manumission in the shall be protected by the Bishops. Churches. The latter are enjoined to take upon themselves the defence of the enfran- (Concilium Toletanum tertium, anno.589.) chieed. " De libertis autem id Dei prscipiunt sacer(Concilium quintum Aurelianense, anno 549.) dotes, ut si qui ab episcopis facti sunt secundum "Et quia plurimorum suggestione comperi- modum quo canones antiqui dant licentiam, sint mus, eos qui in ecclesiis juxta patrioticam liberi; et tantum a patrocinio ecclesia tam ipki consuetudinem a servitiis fuerunt absoluti, pro quam ab eis progeniti non recedant. Ab alil.4 libito quorumcumque iterum adservitium revo- quoque libertati traditi, et ecclesiis commencari, impium esse tractavimus, ut quod in ec- dati, patrocinio episcopali tegantur, a principe clesia Dei consideratione a vinculo servitutis hoc episcopus postulet." (Canon 6.) absolvitur, irritum habeatur. Ideo pietatis causa communi concilio placuit observandum, The Church undertakes to defend the liberty ut qusecumque mancipia ab ingenuis dominis and the property acquired by industry of the servitute laxantur, in ea libertate maneant, enfranchised who have been recommended to quam tune a dominis perceperunt. Hujus. her. modi quoque libertas si a quocumque pulsata (Concilium Toletanum quartum, anno 633.) fuerit, cum justitia ab ecclesiis defendatur, praster eas culpas, pro quibus leges collatas "Liberti qui a quibuscumque manumissi sunt, servis revocare jusserunt libertates." (Canon atque ecclesise patrocinio commendati existunt, 7.) sicut regulae antiquorum patrum constituerunt. 432 NOTES. sacerdotali defensione a cujuslibet insolentia brum, compatiuntur et ccetera membra: si tIce protegantur; sive in statu libertatis eorum, seu tatur membruin unum, collcetantur et cceterci in peculio quod habere noscuntur." (Cap. 72.) membra. (1 ad Cor. xii. 26.) Et alio loco: Quis infirmatur, inquit, et non ego.infirmor? (2 ad The Church will defend the enfranchised: a re- Cor. xi. 29.) Quare nunc et nobis captivitas gulation which does not distinguish owhether fratrum nostra captivitas computanda est, et they have been recommended to her or not. periclitantium dolor pro nostro dolore numerandus est, cum sit scilicet adunationis nostrse ncilium Agathns, nn506.) corpus unum, et non tantum dilectio sed et "Libertos legitime a dominis suis factos ec- religio instigare nos debeat et confortare ad clesia, si necessitas exegerit, tueatur; quod si fratrum membra redimenda. Nam cum denuo quis ante audientiam, aut pervadere, aut expo- apostolus Paulus dicat: Nescitis quia templum liare praesumpserit, ab ecclesia repellatur." Dei estis, et Spiritus Dei habitat in vobis? (1 (Canon 29.) ad Cor. iii. 16), etiamsi charitas nos minus adigeret ad opem fratribus ferendam, consider~ III. andum tamen hoc in loco fuit, Dei templum The Church ha reard the esse quae capta sunt, nec pati nos longa cessaThe Church shallre h reard the anom of captives tione et neglecto dolore debere, ut diu Dei as her firs care; she shall give their interests templa captiva sint; sed quibus possumus virithe preference over her own, however bad may bus elaborare et velociter gerere ut Christum be the state of her affairs. judicem et Dominum et Deum nostrum pro"Sicut omnino grave est, frustra ecclesiastica mereamur obsequiis nostris. Nam cum dicat ministeria venundare, sic iterum culpa est, im- Paulus apostolus, Quotquot in Christo baptizati minente hujusmodi necessitate, res maxime de- estis, Christum induistis (ad Gal. iii. 27,) in solatea Ecclesieo captivis suis prseponere, et in captivis fratribus nostrus contemplandus est eorum redemptione cessare." (Caus. xii. q. 2, Christus et redimendus de periculo captivitatis, cranon 16.) qui nos de diaboli faucibus exuit, nunc ipse qui manet et habitat in nobis de barbarorum maniRemarkable words of St. Ambrose touching the bus exuatur, et redimatur nummaria quantitate ransom of captives. To perform this pious qui nos cruce redemit et sanguine. duty, the holy Bishop breaks up and sells the sacred vessels. (S. Ambrosius de Off, lib ii. cap. 15.) Quantus vero communis omnibus nobis mceror 70.) 1" Summa etianliberalitas captos redi- atque cruciatus est de periculo virginum quae ( 70.) "i Summa etiam liberaitas captos redi- illic tenentur? pro quibus non tantum libertamere, eripere ex hostiunm manibus, subtrahere tis, sed et pudoris jactura plangenda est, nec neci homines, et maxime feminas turpidini, red- ta vincula barbarorum quam lenonum et ludere parentibus liberos, parentes liberis, cives panarium stupra deflenda sunt, ne membra patrise, restituere. Nota sunt haec nimis I1- Christo dicataetin sternum continentise honolyriae vastitate et Thraciae: quanti ubique rum pudica virtute devota, insultantium libidine venales erant captivi orbe.... et contagione foedentur? Quea omnia istic seIbid. (. 71.) "Praecipua est igitur liberalitas, cundum litteras vestras fraternitas nostra coredimere captivos et maxime ab hoste barbaro, gitans et dolenter examinans, prompte omnes qui nihil deferat humanitatis ad misericordiam, et libenter ac largiter subsidia nummaria fratrinisi quod avaritia reservaverit ad redemp- bus contulerunt. ionem." Ib. 1. ii. c. 2 (. 13.) " Ut nos aliquando in.... invidiam incidimus, quod confregerimus vasa Misimus autem sestertia centum millia nummystica, ut eaptivos redimeremusi quod Arianis morum, quae istic in ecclesia cui de Domini displicere potuerat, nec tam factum displiceret, indulgentia preesumus, cleri et plebis apud nos quam ut esset quod in nobis reprehenderetur." consistentis collatione, collecta sunt, quae vos These noble and charitable sentiments were illic pro vestra diligentia dispensabitis. not those of St. Ambrose only; his words are but the expression of the feelings of the whole Church. Without referring tonumbnerless proofs Si tamen ad explorandam nostri anima chariwhich I might adduce here, and before I pass tatem, et examinandi nostri pectoris fidem tale to the canons which I mean to insert, I will aliquid acciderit, nolite cunctari nuntiare haeo copy some passages from a touching letter of nobis litteris vestris, pro certo habentes eccleSt. Cyprian, which contains the motives which siam nostram et fraternitatem istic universam, animated the Church in her pious enterprise, ne haec ultra fiant precibus orare, si facta and gives a lively description of her zeal and fuerint, libenter et largiter subsidia praestare." charity in these admirable efforts. (Epist. 60.) "Cyprianus Januario, Maximo, Proculo, Thus the zeal for the redemption of captives, Victori, Modiano, Nemesiano, Nampulo, et a zeal which was exerted with so much ardor Honorato, fratribus salutem. Cum maximo in later ages, had appeared in the earliest times animi nostri gemitu et non sine lacrymis legi- of the Church; this zeal was founded on grand mus litteras vestras, fratres carissimi, quas and sublime motives, which render this work ad nos pro dilectionis vestrat sollicitudine de in some measure divine. and secure to those iratrum nostrorum et sororum captivitateffe- who devote themselves to it an unfading crown. cistis. Quis enim non doleat in ejusmodi Important information on this subject will be casibus, aut quis non dolorem fratris sui found also in the works of St. Gregory. (V. suum proprium computet cum loquatur apos- lib. iii. ep. 16; lib. iv. ep. 17; lib. vi. ep. 35; tolus Paulus et dicat: Si patitur unum mem- lib. vii. ep. 26, 28, and 38; lib. ix. ep. 17.) NOTES. 433 The property of the Church employed for the datum est, a vobis quolibet tempore repetatur, redemption of captives. hujus prsecepti auctoritate suspicionem ves(Concilium Matisconense secundum, anno 585.) tram praevidimus auferendam; constituentes, "Undo statuimus ac decernimus, ut mos nullam vos exinde, haeredesque vestros quolibet antiquus a fidelibus reparetur; et decimas tenpore repetitionis molestiam sustinere, nec ecclesiasticis famulantibus ceremoniis.populus a quoquam vobis aliquam objici qusestionem." omnis inferat, quas sacerdotes aut in pauperum (L. 7, ep. 14, et hab. Cuas. 12, q. 2, c. 15.) usum aut in captivorum redemptionem prcerogantes, suis orationibus pacem populo ac salu- The propet of the Chlurc served to ranom tern impetrent: si quis autem contumax nostriscaptives. statutis saluberrimis fuerit, a membris ecclesiae (Concilium Vernense secundum, anno 844.) omni tempore separetur." (Canon 5.) "Ecclesise facultates quas reges et reliqui christiani Deo voverunt, ad alimentum servoIt is allowed to break utp the sacred vessels, in rum Dei et pauperum, ad exceptionem hospiorder to devote the price of themn to the re- turn, redemptionis captivorum, atque templorum demption of captives. Dei instaurationem, nunc in usu saecularium (Concilium Rheense, anno 625 el. 630.) detinentur. Hinc multi servi Dei penuriam cibi et potus ac vestimentorum patiuntur, "Si quis episcopus, excepto si evenerit ardua pauperes consuetam eleemosynam non accinlecessitas pro redemptione captivorum minis- piunt, negliguntur hospites,fraudantur captivi, teria sancta frangere pro qualicumque condi- et fama omnium merito laceratur." (Canon 12.) tione presumpserit, ab officio cessabit ecclesiae." Let us observe in this canon the use which (Canon 22.) the Church made of her property; after having The following canon informs us that the supported the clergy, and maintained divine Bishops gave letters of recommendation to the worship, she devoted it to succor the poor, captives; they are desired to state therein the travellers or pilgrims, and to redeem captives. dlate and price of the ransom; they are re- I make this observation here, because the quested also to mention there the wants of those opportunity offers; not because this canon is who are thus restored to liberty. the only proof of the excellent use which the Concilium Lugdunense tertium, anno 583.) Church made of her property. Indeed, a great number of others might be cited, beginning "Id etiam de epistolis placuit captivorum, with the canons called Apostolical. It is neut ita sint sancti pontifices cauti, ut in servitio cessary also to remark the expression which is pontificibus consistentibus qui eorum manu vel sometimes made use of to stigmatize the wicksubscriptione agnoscat epistolse aut quelibet edness of the spoilers of the Church, or of those insinuationum littersa dari debeant, quatenus who administer her property badly; they are de subscriptionibus nulla ratione possit Deo called pauperum necatores,'mn.rderers of the propitio dubitari: et epistola commendationis poor;' to make it well understood that one of pro necessitate cujuslibet promulgata dies da- the principal objects of this property is the tarum et pretia constituta, vel necessitates support of the necessitous. captivorum quos cum epistolis dirigunt, ibidem inserantur." (Canon 2.) IV. Excess into which some ecclesiastics allowed Those tho attempt to take awcay the liberty o themselves to fall, by an indiscreet zeal in persons are excommunicated. favor of captives. (Concilium Lugdunense secundum, anno 566.) (Synodus S. Patricii, Auxilii et Isernini Episcoporum Et qui peccatis facientibus multi in perniin Hibernia celebrata, circa annum Christi 450 vel a e sue conti sunt, aut conntur 456.) assurgere, ut animas longa temporis quiete sine. a' * - * i *. *ulla status sui competitione viventes, nun~ "Si quis clericorum voluerit juvare captivo ulla status sui competition viventes, nun improba proditione atque traditione, aut capcum suo pretio illi subveniat, nam si per furtum tivaverint aut prodtione atquivae traditionentur, sit capillurn inviolaverit, blasphemantur multi clericim domini regis emendare distulerint, per unum latronem, qui sic fecerit excommu- quousqe dom ini regis emendare distulerint, nionis sit." (Canon 32.) quousque hos quos obduxerunt, in loco in quo ninisThe church employed her property in the longum tempus quiete vixerint, restaurare deThe church employed her property in the beant, ecclesise communione priventur." (Caransom of captives; and when the latter hade c p ( afterwards acquired the means of repaying the e see in this canon that private individusums advanced for them, she refused all reim- als, by too frequent attempts, employed vioals, by too frequent attempts, employed viobursement and graciously gave up the price of lence to reduce free persons to slavery. At this time, on account of the irruptions of the (Ex epistolis S. Gregorii.) barbarians, the state of Europe was such,.hat "Sacrorum canonum statuta et legalis per- public authority, weak in the extreme, did mittit auctoritates, lici res ecclesiasticas in not, properly speaking, exist. This is the rearedemptionem captivorum impendi. Et ideo, son why it is so noble to see the Church strugquia edocti a vobis sumns, ante annos fere 18, gling every where to support public order, to virum reverendissimum quemdam Fabium, defend liberty, and excommunicating those Episcopum Ecclesiae Firmanae, libras 11 ar- who attacked that liberty, in contempt of the genti de eadem ecclesia pro redemptione commands of the king. vestra, ac patris vestri Passivi, fratris et coepiscopi nostri, tunc vero clerici, necnon matris The same abuse repressed. vestrue, hostibus impendisse, atque ex hoc (Concilium Rhemense, anno 625 vel C30.) quamdam formidinem vos habere, ne hoc quod "Si quis ingenuum aut libcrum ad servitium 65 2M 2M 134 NOTES. inclinare voluerit, aut fortasse jam fecit, et the text, that many met of that country sold commonitus ab episcopo se de inquietudine their liberty to relieve themselves from diffi. ejus revocare neglexerit, aut emendare noluerit, culties. Let us also remark the regulation tamquam calumniae reum placuit sequestrari." contained in the same canon with respect to (Canon 17.) the children of the person who was sold; whether it be the father or mother, the canon It is declared that he who leads away a Chris- prescribes, in both cases, that the children tian to sell him, is guilty of homicide. shall be free; and it here departs from the (Concilium Confluentinum, anno 922.)' well known rule of civil law: partus sequitur "Item interrogatum est, quid de eo faci- ventrem. endum sit qui christianum hominem seduxerit, et sic vendiderit: responsumque est ab omni-. bus, homicidii reatum, ipsum hominem sibi It is forbidden to give up to the Jewos the slaves contrahere." (Canon 7.) who have taken refuge in the churches; it natters little whether they have chosen that asylum The traffic in men, practised at that time in because their masters obliged them. to things England, is proscribed; it is forbidden to contrary to the Christian faith, or because sell men like ignoble animals. they have been maltreated by them after hav(Concilium Londinense, anno 1102.) ing been once withdrawn from the sacred asy"Ne quis illud nefarium negotiunm quo hac- lumn lder the promise of pardon. tenus in Anglia solebant homines sicut bruta (Concilium Aurelianense tertium, anno 538.) animalia venundari, deinceps ullatenus facere "De mancipiis Christianis, qusa in Judseorum praesumat." servitio detinentur, si eis quod Christiana reliWe see, from the canon which I have just gio vetat, a dominis imponitur, aut si eos quos cited, to what point the Church had attained de ecclesia excusatos tollent, pro culpa qusa in all that affects true civilization. We are in remissa est, affligere aut coedere fortasse praethe nineteenth century, and it is considered sumpserint, et ad ecclesiam iterato confugethat a great step has been gained in modern rint, nullatenus a sacerdote reddantur, nisi civilization by the consent of the great Euro- pretium offeratur ac detur, quod mancipia ipsa pean nations to sign treaties to suppress the valere pronuntiaverit justa taxatio." (Canon slave-trade; now the canon which we have 13.) just cited tells us, that at the beginning of the twelfth century, and in that very town of The precept given in the preceding canon is re-, London, where the famous Convention was newed; a precept contained in the canon which lately held, the traffic in men was forbidden, we have just cited. and stigmatized as it deserves. Nefarium (Concilium Aurelianense quartum, anno 541.) negotim —detestable trade-it is called by the Council: inSfalous traeic, it is called Cum prioribus canonibus jam fuerit defini. by modern civilization, the unconscious heir tum ut de mncipiis Christianis, quge apud of the thoughts and even the words of those Judmeos sunt, si ad ecclesiam confugerint, et men who are, treated by it as barbarians, redimi se postulaverint, etiam ad quoscumque of those Bishops, whom calumny has more or Christianos refugerint, et servire Judaeis noluof those Bishops, whom calumny has more or less represented as a band of conspirators erint, taxato et oblto a fidelibus justo pretio, against the liberty and happiness of the human ab eorum dominio liberentur, ideo statuimus ut race0 tam justa constitutio ab omnibus catholicis conservetur." (Canon 30.) It is ordered that persons who have been sold or The Jews who perverts a Christian slave.is punpledged, shallimmnnediately recover their liberty ished with the loss of all his slaves. (Ibid.) by restoring the price received it is ordained that more shall not be required of them tha Hoc etm ecermu obervndum, ut they shall have received for their liberty. quicumque Judeus proselytum, qui advena dicitur, Judamum facere praesumpserit, aut Chris(Synodus incerti loci, circa annum 616.) tianum factum ad Judaicam superstitionem ad"De ingenuis qui se pro pecunia aut alia ducere; vel si Judaeus Christianam ancillam revendiderint, vel oppignoraverint, placuit ut suam sibi crediderit sbciandam; vel si de paquandoquidem pretium, quantum pro ipsis rentibus Christianis natum, Judaeum sub prodatum est, invenire potuerunt, absque dilatione missione fecerit libertatis, mancipiorum amisad statum suma conditionis reddito pretio re- sione mulctetur." (Canon 31.) formentur, nec amplius quam pro els datum est requiratur. Et interim, si vir ex ipsis, ux- Jces are forbidden to hare Christian slaves oremn ingenuam habuerit, aut mulier ingenuum henceforth; as to those who are in their power, habuerit maritum, filii qui ex ipsis nati fue- all Christians are allowed to ransom them by rint, in ingenuitate permaneant." (Canon 14.) paying their Jewish masters twelve solidi. The text of this Council, held, according to (Concilium Matisconense primum, anno 581.) some, at Boneuil, well deserves to have some "Et liceat quid de Christianis qui aut do remarks made on it. The beneficial regulation captivitatis incursu, aut fraudibus Judseorum which allowed a man who had been sold to servitio implicantur, debeat observari, non regain his liberty by paying the sum received, solum canonicis statutis, sed et legum beneficic checked an evil which was deeply rooted in pridem fuerit constitutum; tamen quia nunc the customs of Gaul at that time, for we find item quo rumdam querela exorta est, quosdam it at a very early period. We know, indeed, Judeeos, per civitates aut municipia consistenfrom Ceesar, whose testimony we have cited in tes, in tantam insolentiam et proterviam pro NOTES. 435 rtpisse, lit nec reclamantes Christianos liceat Another curious example: vel pretio de eorum servitute absolvi: idcirco If a master gcives weat to a slave on. a fastilng praesenti concilio, Deo auctore, sancimus, ut day, the slave becomes free. nullus Christianus Judwos deinceps debeat de- W servire; sed da~tis pr~o quolibet bono ma~ncipio (Conciliuni Bergbhaiistedr anne 50 Withredi regiij servire; sed datis pro quolibet bono mancipio l Cne luCantii, id est Christi 97: Fub Bettualdo Cantuari12 solidis, ipsum mancipium quicumque Chris- ensi archiepiscopo celebratum. Hlec sunt jud.cia tianus, sea ad ingenuitatem, seu ad servitiurn, Withredi regis Cantuariorum.) licentiam habeat redimendi; quia nefas est, ut "Si quis servo suo carnem in jejunio dedil quos Christus Dominus sanguinis sui effusione derit comedendam, servus liber exeat." (Canon redemit, persecutorum vinculis maneant irre- 15.) titi. Quod si acquiescere his qua statuimus quicumque Judaeus noluerit, quamdiu ad pecu- It is definitively forbidden for Jews to have niam constitutam venire distulerit, liceat man- Christianl slaves; all contravention of this cipio ipsi cum Christianis ubicumque voluerit order shall deprive the Jews of all their habitare. Illud etiam specialiter sancientes, slaves, who shall obtain their liberty from the quod si quis Judoeus Christianum mancipium prince. ad errorem Judaicum convictus fuerit suasisse, (Concilium Toletanum quartum, anno 633.) ut ipse mancipio careat, et legandl damnatione s plectatur." (Canon 16.) " Ex decreto gloriosissimi principis. hoc sancturn elegit concilium, ut Judseis non liceat The preceding canon is almost equivalent to Christianos servos habere, nec Christiana mana decree for the entire emancipation of Chris- ipia emere, nec cujusquam consequi largitate: nefas est enim at membra Christi serviant Antian slaves; for if. on the one hand, Jews werenefas est enm ut membra Christi serviant Aiforbidden to acquire new Christian slaves, and, thristi inistrs. Quod si deinceps servos on the other, those who were in their posses- Christinos, vel ancillas Judaei habere praesion could be redeemed by the first Christian sumpserint, sublati a eorum dominatu liberwho came, it is clear that the charity of thetatem a prncipe consequantur." (Canon 66.) faithful thus finding a door open to it, the number of Christian slaves who groaned in the It i forbidden to sell Chriian slaves to Jews power of the Jews must have diminished in an or Gentiles; If such sales have been bde, extraordinary manner. It is not said that they shal be anulled. these canonical regulations of the Church from (Concilium Rhemense, anno 625.) the first moment obtained all the result which "Ut Christiani Judeais vel Gentilibus non was intended; but, as she was the only power vendantur; et si quis Christianorum necessithat remained standing at that time, and the tate cogente mancipia sua Christiana elegerit only one that exercised influence on the na- venundanda, non aliis nisi tantum Christianis tions, it cannot be doubted that her regulations expendat. Nam si paganis aut Judseis vendiwere infinitely advantageous to those in whose derit, communione privetur, et emptio careat favor they were established. firmitate." (Canon 11.) No precaution was too great in those unhapJews are forbidden to acquire Christian slaves. py times. It might appear at first that such If a Jew perverts to Judaism, or circlucises regulations were an effect of the intolerance a Christian slave, the latter becomes free with- of the Church with respect to the Jews and out having any thing to pay to his master. Pagans; and yet, in reality, they were a bar(Conlum Tolet m t m anno 89.) rier against the barbarism which invaded all; (Conilum Tletanum tertium, ann589 they were a guarantee of the most sacred " Suggerente concilio, id gloriossimus domi- rights of man; so much the more necessary, nus noster canonibus inserendum praecipit, ut as all the others, it may be said, had disapJudaeis non liceat Christianas habere uxores, peared. Read the document which we are nequeva ancipia comparare in unsns proprios.. about to transcribe; you will there see that "Si qui vero Christiani ab eis Judaico ritu barbarism was carried so far, that slaves were sunt maculati, vel etiam circumcisi, non reddito sold to the Pagans to be sacrificed. pretio ad libertatem et religionem redeant Christianam." (Canon 14.) (Gregorius Papa III. ep. ad Bonifacium ArchiepiscoThis canon is remarkable, both because it pu, anno 731.) protects the conscience of the slave, and im- "Hoc quoque inter alia crimina agi in parposes on masters a punishment favorable to tibus illis dixisti, quod quidam ex fidelibus ad liberty. This manner of checking the arbi- immolandunm paganis sua venundent mancipia. trary power of those who violated the con- Quod ut magnopere corrigere debeas, frater sciences of their slaves, is found, during the commonemus, nec sinas fieri ultra; scelus est following century, in a curious example con- enim et impietas. Eis ergo qui haec perpetratained in the collection of the laws of Ina, verunt, similem homicidie indices poenitenqueen of the West Saxons. It is this: tiam." These excesses must have occupied the ac, If a master makes his slave work on Sunday, tive attention of the Church, as we see the the slave becomes free. Council of Liptines, held in 743, again insist (Leges Yne reginaeSaxonum Occiduorum, anno 692.) on this point, and forbid Christian slaves to be given up to the Gentiles. " Si servus operetur die dominica per pre- "Et ut mancipia Christiana paganis non septum domini sui, sit liber." (Leg. iii.) tradantur." (Canon 7.) 436 NOTES. t is forbidden to sell a Christian slave outt of nem assumere, ut divinitatis stve gratia, diruto the territory comprised within the kingdom of quo tenebamur captivi vinculo serviLutis, prstiClovis. nee nos restitueret libertati; salubriter agiter, (Concilium Cabilonense, anno 650.) si homines quos ab initio natura creavit liberos "Pietatis est manxime et religionis intuitus, et protulit, et jus gentium jugo substituit serc' ie tit erio nisvitutis, in ea natura in quit nati fuerant, manuut captivitatis vinculum omnino a Christianis itutis, in a natura i qu nati fuerant, manuredimatur. Unde sancta Synodus noscitur cen- mnittentis beneficio, libertati reddantur. Atque suisse, ut nullus mancipium extra fines vel ter- ideo pietatis ituit et hujus rei consideratione minos, qui ad regnum domini Clodovei regis peroti, vos Montanam atque Thomam upertinent, debeat venundare, no quod absit, mulos sanctw Romana Ecclesis, cui Deo adju per tale commercium, aut captivitatis vinculo, tore deservimus, liberos ex hac die civesque vel quod pejus est, Judaica servitute mancipiaRomanos efficimus, omneque vestrum vobis Christiana teneantur implicita." (Canon 9.) relaxamus servitutis peculium." (S. Greg. 1. This canon, which forbids the selling of Chris- v ep. 12.) tian slaves out of the kingdom of Clovis, for fear that they should fall into the power of the Bishos are directed to resect the liberty of Pagans and Jews, and the other of the Council those who have been enfraischied by their of Rheims, cited above, which contains a simi- preecessors. ention is made of the poler lar regulation, are worthy of remark, under given to Bishops to free their slaves who deserve two aspects; they show, 1st, the high respect well, and the num i fied which they yi gve which we ought to have for the soul of man, them to ad then in lvsng. even of him who is a slave, since it is forbidden (Concilium Agathense, anno 506.) to sell him where his conscience might be in "Sane si quos de servis ecclesiie benemeritos danger: a respect which it was very important sibi episcopus libertate donaverit, collatam to maintain, both in order to eradicate the er- libertatem a successoribus placuit custodiri, roneous maxims of antiquity on this point, cum hoc quod eis manumissor in libertate conand because it was the first step towards eman- tulerit, quod tamen jubemus viginti solidorum cipation. 2d. By limiting the power of sale, numerum, et modum in terrula, vineola, vel there was introduced into that kind of property hospitiolo tenere. Quod amplius datum fuerit, a law which distinguished it from others, and post manumissoris mortem ecclesia revocabit." placed it in a different and more elevated cate- (Canon 7.) gory. This was a great step made towards declaring open war against this property itself, TWhat has been norfaged or alienated from the and abolishing it by legitimate means. property of the Church by a Bishop who has Clerics swho sold their slaves to Jetws are severely left nothing of his own, must be restored; but reproved: they are threatened with alarming enfranchised slaves are excepted from this punishments. Irule: they shall preserve their liberty. (Concilium decimum Toletanum, anno 656.)- (Concilium Aurelianense quartum, anno 541.) " Septimae collationis immane satis et infan- " Ut episcopus qui de facultate propria eccledum operationis studium nunc sanctum nostrum sise nihil relinquit, de ecclesiee facultate si quid adiit concilium; quod plerique ex sacerdotibus aliter quam canones eloquunter obligaverit, et levitis, qui pro sacris ministeriis, et pietatis vendiderit, aut distraxerit, ad ecclesiam revostudio, gubernationisque augmento sanct2e ec- cetur. Sane si de servis ecclesiae libertos fecerit clesize deputati sunt officio, malunt imitari tur- numero competenti, in ingenuitate permaneant, barn malorum, potius quam sanctorum patrum ta ut ab ecces on recedant." (Cainsistere mandatis: ut ipsi etiam qui redimerenon 9.) debuerunt, venditiones facere intendant, quos English Council ordains that, at the death Christi sanguine presciunt esse redemptos; ita of each Bishop, all his English slaves shall be ntat, u eorum d inio qui sunt empti freed. The solemnization of the obsequies is duntaxat,' ut corum, dominio qui sunt empti in regulated; to terminate the funeral ceremonies, ritu Judaismo convertantur oppressi, et fit exe- e ated to teinat thefuneral ceremonies crabile commercium, ubi nitente Deo justum each Bishop and abbot shall enfranchise three est sanctum adesse conventum; quia majorum slaves, by giving them each three solidi. canones vetuerunt ut nullus Judrorum conju- (Synodus Cellichytensis, anno 816.) gia vel servitia habere proesumat de Christi- "Decimo jubetur, et hoc firmiter statuimus anorum coetu." asservandum, tam in nostris diebus, quamque Here the Council eloquently reprimands the etiam futuris temporibus, omnibus successoriguilty; it continues: bus nostris qui post nos illis sedibus ordinentur " Si quis enim post hane definitionem talia quibus ordinati sumus: ut quandocumque aliagere tentaverit, noverit se extra ecclesiam quis ex numero episcoporum migraverit de fieri, et presenti, et futuro judicio cum Juda saeculo, hoc pro anima illius preecipimus, ex simili poena percelli, dum modo Dominum substantia uniuscumque rei decimam partem denuo proditionis pretio malunt ad iracundiam dividere, ac distribuere pauperibus in eleeprovocare." (Canon 7.) mosynam, sive in pecoribus, et armentis, seu # -VI. dode ovibus et porcis, vel etiam in cellariis, nec nom omnem hominem Anglicum liberare, qui Pope St. Gregory the First gives freedom to in diebus suis sit servituti subjectus, ut per illud two slaves of the Church of Rome. Remarkable sui proprii laboris fructum retributionis perpassage, in which this holy pope explains the cipere mereatur, et indulgentiam peccatorumn motives which induced the Christians8to eifran- i Z5 moties hich induced the Christians to enfran- Nec ullatenus ab aliqua persona huic capitulo chise their slaves. \contradicatur, sed magis, prout condecet, a "Cum Redemptor noster totius conditor crea- successoribus augeatur, et ejus memoria semper 4urve ad hoc propitiatus humanam voluerit car. in posterum per universas ecclesias iostrae NOTES. 437 ditioni subjectas cum Dei laudibus habeatur et A Canon containing the same regulation as the honoretur. Prorsus orationes et eleemosynas preceding; and whence, moreover, it appears, quae inte; nos specialiter condictam habemus, that the faithful, for the salvation of their id est, ut statim per singulas parochias in souls, were accustomed to offer their slaves to singulis quibusque ecclesiis, pulsato signo, om- God and the Saints. nis famulorum Dei coetus ad basilicam conve- (Ex eodem, anno 864.) niant, ibique pariter xxx psalmos pro defuncti videtur et impim, ut mancip animae decantent. Et postea unusquisque antis- que fideles Deo et sanctis ejus pro remedio tes et abbas sexcentos psalmos, et centum vi- aniie sae consecrarunt, cujuscumque muneris ginti missas celebrare faciat, et tres homines gnti missas celebra~re faciat, et tres honzes mancipio, vel commutationis commercio iterum liberet. et eorum cuilibet tres solidos distribuat." mancipio, vel commutationis commercio iterum in servitutem secularium redigantur, cum caC(Co~anon:~ 10.) nnonica auctoritas servos tantummodo permittat A curious document, which shows the generous distrahi fugitivos. Etideo ecclesiarumrectores resolution made by the Council of Armagh summopere caveant,ne eleemosyna unius, altein Ireland, to give liberty to all the English rius eccatum fiat. Et est absurdum, ut ab ~sl~~a~vees~. aecclesiastica dignitate servus discedens, humanse sit obnoxius servituti." (Ibid. cap. 4.) (Concilium Ardamachiense in Hibernia celebratum, m anno 1171: ex Giraldo Cambrensi, cap. xxviii. Fr m hl Hibernize expugnatee.) Freedom shall be granted to slaves who wish to "His completis convocato apud Ardama- embrace the monastic state, yet without nechiam totius Hiberniae clero, et super advena- lectig ueful pecautio to ascertain the rum in insulam adventu tractato diutius et eality of their vocation. deliberate, tandem communis omnium in hoc (Concilium Romanum sub S. Gregorio I., anno 597.J senteritia resedit: propter peccata scilicet po- "Multos de ecclesiastica seu saeculari familia, puli sui, eoque prrecipue quod Anglos olim, tam novimus ad omnipotentis Dei servitium festia mercatoribus, quam praedonibus atque piratis, nare, ut ab humana servitute liberi in divino emere passim, et in servitutem redigere con- servitio valeant familiarius in monasteriis consueverant, divinee censura vindictae hoc eis versari, quos si passim dimittimus, omnibus incommodurn accidisse, ut et ipsi quoque ab fugiendi ecclesiastici juris dominium occasioeadem gente in servitutem vice reciproca jam nem prrebemus: si vero festinantes ad omniporedigantur. Anglorum namque populus adhuc tentis Dei servitium, incaute retinemus, illi integro eorum regno, communi gentis vitio, invenimur negare quaedam qui dedit omnia. liberos suos venales exponere, et priusquam Unde necesse est, ut quisquis ex juris ecclesiinopiam ullam aut inediam sustinerent, filios astici vel saecularis militive servitute ad Dei proprios et cognatos in Hiberniam vendere servitium converti desiderat, probetur prius in consueverant. Unde et probabiliter credi po- laico habitu constitutus: et si mores ejus atque test, sicut venditores olim, ita et einptores, tam conversatio bona desiderio ejus testimonium enormi delicto juga servitutis jam meruisse. ferunt, absque retractatione servire in monasDecretum est itaque in prredicto concilio, et terio omnipotenti Domino permittatur, ut ab cum universitatis consensu publice statutum, humano servitio liber recedat, qui in divinio ut Angli ubique per insulam, servitutis vinculo obsequio districtiorem appetit servitutem." (S. mancipati, in pristinam revocentur libertatem." Greg. epist. 44. lib. iv). It is thus that religious ideas influence and soften the ferocious manners of nations. When The abuse of ordai1ing slaves without the cona public calamity occurs, they immediately find sent of their masters had spread; this abuse its cause in the divine anger, justly excited by is checked. the traffic which the Irish carried on by buy- (Ex epistolis Gelasii Papne.) ing English slaves of merchants, robbers, andtiquis reglis t novella synodli xpirates. It is not less curious to learn, that at anatn r s s esonas othat time the English were barbarous enough planatione comprehensum est personas obtht time the Eglish were barbarou oxias servituti, cingulo ccelestis militire non to sell their children and relations, like the servitti, cingulo clestis militi non Africans of our days. This frightful custom| pie cng pi Sed nescio, trum ignorantia an must have been pretty general, as we read in lun r, t t ex hac a enim the passage quoted, that it was the common pene Episcoporu11 videatur extorris. Ita enim nos frequens et plurimorum querela nos cirvice of those nations: communi gentis vitio. nosfreqpens et plurimorum qucrela nos cirvice of those nations: co~mmumi gentzs vitio, cumstrepit, ut ex hac parte nihil penitus pute.. This makes us better understand the necessity costrit ute ac arte nihil penitus pte of a regulation inserted above, that of the constitut " (Distin. 54. c. 9.) Council of London, held in 1102, which pro- "Frequens equidem, et assidua nos querela scribes'this infamous traffic in men. circlmstrepit de his pontificibus, qui nec antiquas regulas nec decreta nostra noviter directa It is forbidden to change the slaves of the Church cogitantes, obnoxias possessionibus obligatasfor other slaves, unless the exchange procured que personas, venientes ad clericalis officii their liberty. cingulum non recusant." (Ibid. c. 10.) (Ex concilio apud Sylvanectum, anno 864.) "Actores siquidem filise nostree illustris et "Mancipia ecclesiastica, nisi ad libertaterm agnificae femine, Maximse, petitorii nobis non convenit commutari; videlicet ut mancipia, insinuatione conquesti sunt, Sylvestrum atque que pro ecclesiastico homine dabuntur, in ec- Candidum, originarios suos, contra constituclesiae servitute permaneant, et ecclesiasticustiones, qus supradicte sunt, et contradictions homo, qui commutatur, fruatur perpetua liber- praeeunte a Lucerino Pontifice diaconos orditate. Quod enim semel Deo consecratum est, natos." (Ibid c. 11.) ad humanos usus transferri non decet." (V. "Generalis etiam querelce vitanda prcesum.pDecret. Greg. IX., L iii. tit. 19, cap. 3.) tio est, qua propemodum causantur univtrsif 2u2 43 8 NOTES. passim servos et originarios, dominorum jura, solicitude of the Roman See in favor of the possessionumque fugientes, sub religiosso con- slaves of the whole universe. I mean the versationis obtentu, vel ad monasteria sese apostolical letters published at Rome, Novemvonferre, vel ad ecclesiasticum famulatum, con- ber 3, 1839, against the slave-trade; and I niventibus quippe preesulibus, indifferenter recommend the perusal of them. It will be admitti. Quae modis omnibus est amovenda there seen, in the most authentic and decisive pernicies, ne per Christiani nominis institutum manner, that the Catholic Church, on this imaut aliena pervadi, aut publica videatur dis- portant subject of slavery, has always showed, ciplina subverti." (Ibid. c. 12.) and shows still, the most lively spirit of charity, without in the least offending against justice, The parish priests are allowed to choose some or for a moment departing from the path of clerics from the slaves of the Church. prudence. (Concilium Emeritense, anno 666.) "Quidquid unanimiter digne disponitur in "Gregorius P. P. XVI. ad futuram rei mesancta Dei ecclesia, necessarium est ut a pard- moriam. chitanis presbyteris custoditum maneat. Sunt eni nonnulli, qui eclesiarum suru re ad "Raised to the supreme degree of the aposenimnonnul qui eccesiaumsuarum tolical dignity, and filling, although without plenitudinem habent, et sollicitudo illis nulla tolicl it, d f, ath ouh wthoutf est habendi clericos, cum quibus omnipotenti any merit on our part, the place of Jesus Deo l~audum debita persolvant oflicia.' Proinde Christ, the Son of God, who, by the excess of -e ~bdmdeia eslv~t fca.~Y H Iis charity, has deigned to become man, and instituit hseec saneta synodus, ut omnes paro-Is charity, has deigned to bee, an institumt haec sancta synodUS, ut~ omnes paro die for the redemption of the world; we conchitani presbyteri, juxta ut in rebus sibi a Deo die for the redemption of the world; we concreditis sentiunt habere virtutem, de eccibesi e sider that it belongs to our pastoral solicitude creditis sentiunt habere virtutem, de ecclesie to exert all our efforts to prevent Christianr~ sue familia clericos sibi faciant; quos per to exert all our efforts to prevent Christian bonam voluntatem ita nutriart, ut et officim from engaging in the trade in blacks or any sanctum digne paragant, et ad servitium suumnother men, whoever they may be. aptos eos habeant. Hi etiam victum et vesti- "A soon as the ht o f th e Gosel bean tum dispensatione presbyteri merebuntur, et to spread, the unfortunate men who fell into domino et presbytero suo, atque utilitati eccle-he ha iea fideles esse debent. Quodsi inutiles appa- wars of that period, felt their condition improved; for the apostles, inspired by the Spirit ruerint ut culpa patuerit, correptione discipline proved; for the apostles, inspired by the Spirit feriantur; si quis presbyterorum hane seinten- of God, on the one hand, taught slaves to obey feriantur;m si q uis pr esbyttrorumrs hand sententiam minsime custodierit, aet non adimpleverit, their earthly masters, as Jesus Christ Himself, ib epi o soorriatu: t pn iplei and to be resigned from the bottom.of their todiat, quod digne jubetur." (Canon s8.) heart to the will of God; but, on the other, todiat, ubetur." (Cao.) they commanded masters to behave well to it is prescribed to the Bishops to conifer liberty their slaves, to grant them what was just and onl the slaves of the Church before they adit equitable, and not to treat the with anger, the into the clerial boy knowing that the Lord of both is in heaven, the into the cerical band that with Iim there is no distinction of (Concilium Toletanum nonum, anno 655.) persons. "Qui ex familiis ecclesiae servituri devocan- "The law of the Gospel having very soon tur in clerum ab episcopis suis, necesse est, ut universally and fundamentally ordained sincere libertatis percipiant donum:- et si honeste vitas charity towards all, and the Lord Jesus having claruerint meritis, tune demum e majoribus fun- declared that le would regard as done or regantur officiis. (Canon 11.) fused to Himself all the acts of beneficence and mercy done or refused to the poor and it is allooed to ordain the slaves of the Church, little ones-it naturally followed that Chrisliberty having been previously co]ferred o0 tians not only regarded their slaves as brethren, them. above all when they were become Christians, (Colcilium quartem Toletanum, anno 633.) but that they were more inclined to give liberty e familiis ceclesixe constituere presbyteros to those who rendered themselves worthy of ut diaconos per paroclhias liceat; quos tamenit. This usually took place particularly on vitCe rectitud o t probitas morumr commendat: the solemn feasts of Easter, as St. Gregory of em tamen ratione, utt antea nsalnnissi liberta- Nyssa relates. There were even found some ten stats si percipialt, et denuo ad ecclesias- who, inflamed with more ardent charity, enmticos honores succedant; irreligiosum est enim braced slavery for the redemption of their obligatos existere servituti, qui sacri ordinis brethren; and an apostolic man, our predecessuscipiunt dignitatenl." sor, Pope Gregory I., of sacred memory, attests that he had known a great many who performp vII. ed this work of mercy. Wherefore the darkness of Pagan superstition being entirely disWe have shown in the text by what means, sipated in the progress of time, and the with what wisdom and perseverance Christian- manners of the most barbarous nations being ity abolished slavery in the ancient world; softened,-thanks to the benefit of faith workChristian and Catholic Europe was free at the ing by charity,-things advanced so far, that time when Protestantism appeared. Let us for many centuries there have been no slaves now see what Catholicity has done in modern among the greater part of Christian nations. times, with respect to slaves in other parts of Yet (we say it with profound sorrow) men have the world. We can present to our readers in been since found, even among Christians, who, one document, which is the evidence of the shamefully blinded by the desire of sordid ideas and feelings of the Sovereign Pontiff gain, have not hesitated to reduce into slavery, Gregory XVI., an interesting history of the in distant countries, Indians, Negroes, and NOTES. 439,ther unfortunate races; or to assist in thisi the apostolic office, we warn and admonish in scandalous crime, by instituting and organizing the Lord all Christians, of whatever condition a traffic in these unfortunate beings, who had they may be, and enjoin upon them that, for been loaded with chains by others. A great the future, no one shall venture unjustly to number of the Roman Pontiffs, our predeces- oppress the Indians, Negroes, or other men, sors of glorious memory, have not forgotten to whoever they may be; to strip them of their stigmatize, throughout the extent of their property or reduce them into servitude: or jurisdiction, the conduct of these men as in- give aid or support to those who commit such jurious to their salvation, and disgraceful to excesses, or carry on that infamous traffic, by the Christian name; for they clearly saw that which the blacks, as if they were not men, but it was one of the causes which tended most mere impure animals, reduced like them into powerfully to make infidel nations continue in servitude, without any distinction, contrary to their hatred to the true religion. the laws of justice and humanity, are bought, "This was the object of the apostolical letters sold, and devoted to endure the hardest labors; of Paul II., of the 29th of May, 1537, ad- and on account of which dissensions are exdressed to the Cardinal Archbishop of Toledo, cited and almost continual wars are fomented under the ring of the fisherman, and other among nations by the allurements of gain ofletters, much more copious, of Urban VIII., ferod to those who first carry away the Negroes. of the 22d April, 1639, addressed to the col- "Wherefore, by virtue of the apostolical lector of the rights of the Apostolic Chamber authority, we condemn all these things aforein Portugal,-letters, in which the most severe said, as absolutely unworthy of the Christian censures are cast upon those who venture to name; and, by the same authority, we absoreduce the inhabitants of the East or West lutely prohibit and interdict all ecclesiastics Indies into slavery, buy, sell, give, or exchange and laymen from venturing to maintain that them, separate them from their wives and this traffic in blacks is permitted, under any children, strip them of their property, take or pretext or color whatsoever; or to preach or send them into strange places, or deprive them teach in public or in private, in any way whatof their liberty in any way, to retain them in ever, anything, contrary to these apostolic slavery; or aid, counsel, succor, or favor those letters. And in order that these letters may who do these things under any color or pre- come to the knowledge of all, and that no one tence whatever; or preach or teach that this may pretend ignorance, we ordain and decree is lawful, and, in fine, co-operate therewith'in that they be published and posted up, accordany way whatever. Benedict XIV. has since ing to custom, by one of our officers, on the confirmed and renewed these pontifical ordi- doors of the basilica of the Prince of the Aposnances before mentioned by new apostolical ties, of the Apostolic Chancery, of the Palace letters to the Bishops of Brazil and some other of Justice, of Monte Citorio, and at the Campo countries, dated the 20th December, 1741, by di Fiori. Given at Bome, at St. Mary Major's, means of which he calls forth the solicitude of under the seal of the fisherman, the 3d of Nothe Bishops for the same purpose. A long vember, 1839, the ninth year of our Pontificate. time before, another of our more ancient pre- Louis, CARDINAL LAMIBRUSCHINI." decessors, Pius II., whose pontificate saw the I again particularly invite attention to the empire of the Portuguese extended in Guinea document which I have just inserted-to these and in/the country of the blacks, addressed letters which magnificently crown the united letters, dated the 7th of October, 1482, to the efforts of the Church for the abolition of slavery. Bishop of Ruvo, who was ready to depart for As the abolition of the slave-trade-the object those countries: in these letters he did not of a treaty recently made between the great confine himself to giving to this prelate the powers-is at this moment one of the affairs means requisite for exercising the sacred min- which occupy the chief attention of Europe, it istry in those countries with the greatest fruit, is proper to pause a few moments, to reflect on but he took occasion very severely to blame the contents of the apostolic letters of the the conduct of those who reduced the neo- Sovereign Pontiff Gregory XVI. Let us obphytes into slavery. In fine, in our days, Pius serve, in the first place, that in the year 1482, VII., animated by the same spirit of charity Pope Pius II. addressed apostolical letters to and religion as his predecessors, zealously in- the Bishop of Ruvo, about to depart for the terposed his good offices with men of authority newly discovered countries-letters, in which for the entire abolition of the slave-trade he did not exclusively confine himself to giving among Christians. the prelate the powers necessary to exercise "These ordinances, and this solicitude of our his holy ministry with the greatest fruit in predecessors, have availed not a little, with the those countries, but in which he takes occasion aid of God, in defending the Indians, and other to censure very severely the conduct of Chrisnations who have just been mentioned, against tians who reduced the neophytes into slavery. the barbarity of conquest, and the cupidity of Exactly at the end of the fifteenth century, at Christian merchants; but the HIoly See is far the time when it may be said that the Church from being able to boast of the complete sue- gathering the last fruit of her long labors, at cess of its efforts and zeal, for, if the slave- length saw Europe emerge from the chaos in trade has been partially abolished, it is still which the irruption of the barbarians had carried on by a great many Chiistians. Where- plunged her; at the time when the social and fore, desiring to remove such a disgrace from political institutions were developed with daily all Christian countries, after having maturely increasing ardor, and began to form a regular considered the matter with. many of our vene- and coherent body; at this moment the Church rable brethren, the Cardinals of the Holy resumes her secular contest with another barRoman Church, assembled in Council, following barism which reappeared in distant countries; tile example of our predecessors, by virtue of she opposes the abuse of the superirity of 440 NOTES. strength and intelligence, which the conquerors and of the contempt with which the Indians possessed over the conquered nations. must have inspired them, on account of the This fact alone proves that, for the true inferiority of their knowledge, and of their liberty and well-being of nations, for the just backwardness in civilization and refinement: pre-eminence of right over might, and for the what must have happened? If, in spite of the triumph of justice over force, the intelligence incessant cries of religion, in spite of the inand refinement of nations are not enough-re- fluence which she had on laws and manners, ligion also is required. In ancient times, we the conquered nations have had so much to see nations cultivated to the highest point suffer, would not the evil have been carried to commit unheard of atrocities; and in modern an intolerable extent, without those powerful times, Europeans, so proud of their knowledge causes which incessantly combated, prevented and advancement, introduce slavery among or diminished it? The conquered would have the unfortunate nations who have fallen under been reduced into slavery en masse they would their dominion. Now, who was the first to have been condemned en masse to perpetual raise a voice against such injustice-against degradation; they would have been deprived such horrible barbarity? It was not policy, even of the hope of one day entering on the which perhaps rejoiced to see its conquests career of civilization. consolidated by slavery; it was not commerce If the conduct of Europeans at that time which found in this infamous traffic an easy with respect to men of other races-if the conmeans of making shameful but abundant duct of some nations of our own days is to be profits; it was not philosophy, which, fully deplored, it cannot be said at least that the explaining the doctrines of Plato and Aristotle, Catholic religion has not opposed such excesses would perhaps have seen without concern the with all her strength; it cannot be said that resuscitation of the degrading theory of races the Head of the Church has ever allowed these born for slavery; but it was the Catholic reli- evils to pass without raising his voice to recall gion, expressing herself by the mouth of the to mind the rights of men, to stigmatize injusVicar of Jesus Christ. tice, to excite abhorrence of cruelty, and enerIt is certainly a consolatory spectacle for getically to plead the cause of humanity, withCatholics to see a Roman Pontiff, four centuries out distinction of races, climates, or colors. ago, condemn what Europe, with all her civili- Whence does Europe derive this lofty idea zation and refinement, condemns only at the and this generous feeling, which urge her to present day. Still, Europe only does so with declare herself so strongly against the traffic in difficulty; and all those who take part in this men, and to demand the complete abolition of tardy condemnation are not exempt from the slavery in the colonies? When posterity shall suspicion of being actuated by motives of call to mind these glorious facts; when it shall interest. No doubt the Roman Pontiff did not adopt them as marking a new era in the annals effect all the good he intended; but doctrines of civilization; when, studying and analyzing do not remain sterile when they emanate from the causes which have conducted European a high quarter, whence, diffusing themselves to legislation and manners to so high a pitch, and, great distances, they descend on persons who passing over temporary and unimportant moreceive them with veneration, if it were only tives, insignificant circumstances, and secondon account of him who teaches them. The ary agents, it shall seek for the vital principle conquering nations were then Christians, and which impelled European civilization towards sincere ones; it is therefore indubitable, that so glorious an end, it will find that this principle the admonitions of the Pope, transmitted by was Christianity; and if. desiring to fathom the mouths of Bishops and other priests, must the question more and more. it should inquire have had very salutary effects. If, in cases whether this was Christianity, under a vague like this, where we see a measure taken against and general form-Christianity without authoan evil, the evil nevertheless resists and con- rity-Christianity without Catholicity-the tinues, we imagine, by a grievous mistake, that answer of history will be this: Catholicity, the measure has been vain, and that its author exclusively prevailing in Europe, abolished has produced no effect. It is one thing to ex- slavery among the European races; she introtirpate, and another to diminish an evil; and duced the principle of the abolition of slavery it cannot be doubted that, if the Bulls of the into European civilization, by showing practiPopes had not all the effect intended, they cally, and in opposition to the opinion of antimust nevertheless have served to diminish the quity, that slavery was not necessary for evil, by improving the lot of nations fallen society; and she made it understood, that the under the yoke. The evil prevented and sacred work of enfranchisement was the founavoided is not seen; the preservative has hin- dation of all great and life-giving civilization. dered its existence; but the existing evil is She has therefore inoculated European civilizapalpable-it affects us, it excites our regret, tion with the principle of the abolition of and we often forget the gratitude due to the slavery; it is owing to her that, wherever this hand which has preserved us from greater civilization has come into contact with slavery, evils. How often is it thus with respect to re- it has been profoundly disturbed-an evident ligion! She cures many things, but she pre- proof that there were at the bottom two oppovents still more. If she takes possession of the site elements, two contending principles, which heart of man, it is in order to destroy there were compelled to struggle incessantly, until even the very roots of a thousand evils. the more powerful, noble, and fruitful prevailLet us imagine the Europeans of the fifteenth ing, and reducing the other under the yoke, in century invading the East and West Indies, the end annihilated it. I will say more: by without any check, guided only by the inspira- searching whether facts really confirm this tions of cupidity, and by the caprices of arbi- influence of Catholicity, not only in all that trary power, full of the pride of conquerors, concerns the civilization of Europe, but also in NOTES. 441 the countries which Europeans have conquered, compel them to labor. The Dominicans, retwo centuries ago, in the East and W'est, we gardless of such political and interested conshall meet with Catholic Bishops and priests siderations, would not relax in any degree the working without intermission in improving the rigor of their sentiments, and even refused to lot of colonial slaves; we shall call to mind absolve, or admit to the sacrament, such of what is due to the Catholic missions; we shall their countrymen as continued to hold the naread and understand the apostolical letters of tives in servitude. Both parties applied to the Pius:I., issued in 1482, and mentioned above; king for his decision in a matter of such imthose of Paul III., in 1537; those of Urban portance. Ferdinand empowered a committee VIII., in 1639; those of Benedict XIV., in of his Privy Council, assisted by some of the 1741; and those of Gregory XVI., in 1839. most eminent civilians and divines in Spain, In these letters there is taught and defined to hear the deputies sent from IIiipaniola in all that has been or can be said on this point support of their respective opinions. After a in favor of humanity. We shall there find long discussion, the speculative point in conblamed, condemned, and punished, all that troversy was determined in favor of the DoEuropean civilization has at length resolved minicans; the Indians were declared to be a to condemn and punish; and when calling to free people, entitled to all the natural rights mind also that it was Pius VII., who, at the of man; but notwithstanding this decision, beginning of this century, zealously interposed the repartimientos were continued upon their his good offices with men in power for the con- ancient footing. As this determination adplete abolition of slavery among Christians, we mitted the principle upon which the Dominicans shall not be able to avoid acknowledging and founded their opinion, they renewed their efconfessing that Catholicity has had the princi- forts to obtain relief for the Indians with addipal share in this great work. It is she indeed tional boldness and zeal. At length, in order who has laid down the principle on which the to quiet the colony, which was alarmed by their work rests, who has established the precedents remonstrances and censures, Ferdinand issued which guide it, who has constantly proclaimed a decree of his Privy Council (1513), declaring the principles which have suggested it and has that after mature consideration of the apostolic constantly condemned those who have opposed Bull, and other titles by which the Crown of it; it is she, in fine, who at all times has de- Castile claimed a right to its possessions, in the dared tpen war against cruelty and cupidity, new world, the servitude of the Indians was -the support and perpetual motives for in- warranted both by the laws of God and man; justice and inhumanity. Let us hear the testi- that unless they were subjected to the dominion mony of a celebrated Protestant author, Ro- of the Spaniards, and compelled to reside under bertson, the historian of America: "From the their inspection, it would be impossible to retime that ecclesiastics were sent as instructors claim them from idolatry, or to instruct them into America, they perceived that the rigor in the Christian faith; that no further scruple with which their countrymen treated the na- ought to be entertained concerning the lawfultives rendered their ministry altogether fruit- ness of the repartimientos, as the King and less. The missionaries, in conformity with the Council were willing to take the charge of that mild spirit of that religion which they were em- upon their own consciences; and that therefore ployed to publish, soon remonstrated against the Dominicans, and monks of other religious the maxims of the planters with respect to the orders, should abstain for the future from those Americans, and condemned the;epartimientos, invectives which, from an excess of charitable or distributions, by which they were given up but ill-informed zeal, they had uttered against as slaves to their conquerors, as no less con- the practice. That his intention of adhering trary to natural justice and the precepts of to this decree might be fully understood, FerdiChristianity, than to sound policy. The Domini- nand conferred new grants of Indians upon cans, to whom the instruction of the Americans several of his courtiers. But in order that he was originally committed, were the most vehe- might not seem altogether inattentive to the ment in attacking the repartinientos. In the rights of humanity, he published an edict, in year 1511, Motesino, one of their most eminent which he endeavored to provide for the mild preachers, inveighed against this practice in the treatment of the Indians under the yoke to great church at St. Domingo, with all the im- which he subjected them; he regulated the petuosity of his natural eloquence. Don Diego nature of the work which they should be reColumbus, the principal officers of the colony, quired to perform; he prescribed the mode in and all the laymen who had been his hearers, which they should be clothed and fed, and gave complained of the monk to his superiors; but directions with respect to their instruction in they, instead of condemning, applauded his the principles of Christianity. But the Dodoctrine, as equally pious and seasonable. The minicans, who, from their experience ot what Franciscans, influenced by the spirit of oppo- had passed, judged concerning the future, soon sition andrivalship which subsists between the perceived the inefficacy of those provisions, two orders, discovered some inclination to take and foretold that, as long as it was the interest part with the laity, and to espouse the defence of individuals to treat the Indians with rigor, of the repartimientos. But as they could not no public regulations would render their serviwith decency give their approbation to a sys- tude mild or tolerable. They considered it as tem of oppression so repugnant to the spirit of vain to waste their own time and strength in religion, they endeavored to palliate what they attempting to communicate the sublime truths could not justify, and alleged in excuse for the to men whose spirits were broken, and their conduct of their countrymen, that it was im- faculties impaired by oppression. Some of possible to carry on any improvement in the them, in despair, requested the permission of colony, unless the Spaniards possessed such their superiors to remove to the continent, and dominion over the natives, that they could pursue the object of their mission among such 56 442 AOTES. of the natives as were not hitherto corrupted nate itself for the obstacles which, during three by the example of the Spaniards, or alienated centuries, it has opposed to the universality by their cruelty from the Christian faith. Such and efficacy of the Christian influence on infi.. as remained in Hispaniola continued to remon- del nations. These few words will suffice here; strate, with decent firmness, against the servi- we shall return to this important subject later. tilde of the Indians. " The violent operations of Albuquerque, the NOTE 16,. 131. new distributor of the Indians, revived the zeal of the Dominicans against the repartimientos, We can scarcely believe how far the ideas and called forth an advocate for that oppressed of the ancients went astray with regard to the people who possessed all the courage, the ta- respectwhich is due to man. Can it be believed lents, and the activity requisite in supporting that they went so far, as to regard the lives of such a desperate cause. This was Bartholomew all who could not be useful to society as of no de las Casas, a native of Seville, and one of value? and yet nothing is more certain. Wo the clergymen sent out with Columbus in his might lament that this or that city had adopted second voyage to Hispaniola, in order to settlea barbarous law; that a ferocious custom was in that Island. Hie early adopted the opinion introduced among a people by the effect of parprevalent among ecclesiastics with respect to ticular circumstances; yet as long as philosothe unlawfulness of reducing the natives to phy protested against such attempts, human servitude; and that he might demonstrate the reason would have been unstained, and could sincerity of his conviction, he relinquished all not have been accused without injustice of the Indians who had fallen to his share in the taking part in infamous attempts at abortion division of the inhabitants among their con- or infanticide. But when we find crime dequerors, declaring that he should ever bewail fended and taught by the most important phihis own misfortune and guilt, in having exer- losophers of antiquity; when we see it triumph cised for a moment this impious dominion over in the minds of the most illustrious men, who, his fellow-creatures. From that time he be- with fearful calmness and serenity, prescribe came the avowed patron of the Indians; and the atrocities which we have named, we are by his bold interpositions in their behalf, as confounded, and our blood runs cold; we would well as by the respect due to his abilities and fain shut our eyes, not to see so much infamy character, he had often the merit of setting thrown upon philosophy and humannreason. some bounds to the excesses of his country- Let us hear Plato in his Republic, in that book men." (History of Amlerica, book 3.) in which he undertook to collect all the theoIt would be too long to relate here the ener- ries in his opinion the most distinguished and getic efforts of De las Casas in favor of the the best adapted to lead human society towards colonies of the new world; all know them- its beau ideal. This is his scandalous language: all must know that, filled with zeal for the "Oportet profecto secundum ea quea supra liberty of the Indians, he conceived and under- concessimus, optimos viros mulieribus optimis took an attempt at civilization analogous to ut plurimum congredi: deterrimos autem conthat which was realized later, to the immortal tra, deterrimis. Et illorem quidem prolem honor of the Catholic clergy, in Paraguay. nutrire, horum minime, si armentum excelIf the efforts of De las Casas had not all the lentissimum sit futurum. Et haec omlnia dum success that might naturally have been ex- agantur, ab omnibus preterquam a principibus pected, we find the cause of this in the thou- ignorari, si modo armentum custodumn debeat sand passions with which history makes us seditione carere." "Prope admodum;" "Very acquainted, and perhaps also in the impetuosity good," replies another speaker. (Plat. Rep. 1. v.) of this mean, whose sublime zeal was not always Behold, then, the human race reduced to the accompanied by the consummate prudence condition of mere brutes; in truth, the phiwhich the Church displays. losopher had reason to use the word flock However this may be, Catholicity has com- (armmentunm)! There is this difference, howpletely accomplished her mission of peace and ever, that magistrates imbued with such feellove; without injustice or catastrophe, she has ings must have been more harsh towards their broken the chains under which a large portion subjects than a shepherd towards his flock. If of the human race groaned; and if it had been the shepherd finds among the lambs which given her to prevail for some time in Asia and have just been born a weak and lamue one, he Africa, she would have Achieved their destrue- does not kill it or allow it to die of hunger; he tion in the four quarters of the globe, by carries it to the sheep who ought to nourish it, banishing the degradations and the abomnina- he caresses it to stop its cries. tions introduced and established in those coun- But perhaps the expressions which we have tries by Mahometanism and idolatry. It is just quoted escaped the philosopher in a momelancholy, no doubt, that Christianity has ment of inadvertence; perhaps the idea which not yet exercised over these latter countries all they reveal was only one of those sinister inthe influence which would have been necessary spirations which glide into the mind of a man, to ameliorate the social and political condition and pass away without leaving any more imof those nations, by changing their ideas and pression than is made by a reptile moving manners. But if we seek for the causes of through the grass. We wish it were so, for this lamentable delay, we certainly shall not the fame of Plato; but unhappily he returns find them in the conduct of Catholicity. This to itso often, and insists on the point with so is not the place to point out these causes; systematic a coldness, that no means of justinevertheless, while reserving the analysis and fying him are left. "With respect," he says complete examinationof this matter for another lower down, "to the children of citizens of part of the work, I will make the remark en inferior rank,.and even those of other citizens, passaut, that Protestantism may justly crimi- if they are born deformed, the magistrates NOTES. 443 Mhall hide them, as is proper, in some secure thing else can be compared; the greatest evil place, which it shall be forbidden to reveal." that can happen is, that this unity should be "Yes," replies one of the interlocutors; "if broken-an evil which must be avoided by all we desire to preserve the race of warriors in imaginable means. "Is not the worst evil of its purity." a state," says Plato, "that which divides it, Plato also lays down various rules with and 2ake8 miany out of one? and is not the respect to the relations of the two sexes; he greatest excellence of a state, that which binds speaks of the case in which the man and wo- all its parts together, and makes it one f" Reman shall have reached an advanced age: lying on this principle, and pursuing the de"Quando igitur jam mulieres et viri etatem velopment of his theory, he takes individuals generationi aptaim egressi fuerint, licere viris and families, and kneads them, as it were, in dicemus, cuicumque voluerint, praeterquam order to form them into ONE compact whole. filia atque matri et filiarum natis matrisve Thus, besides education and life in common, he majoribus: licere et mulieribus cuilibet, prse- wishes also to have women and children in terquam filio atque patri, ac superioribus et common; he considers it injurious that there inferioribus eorumdem. Cum vero hbse omnia should be personal enjoyments or sufferings; mandaverimus, interdicemus fcetum talem (si he desires that all should be common and contigeret) edi et in lucem produci. Si quid social; he allows individuals to live, think, autem matrein parere coegerit, ita exponere feel, and act only as parts of a great whole. praecipiemus, quasi ei nulla nutritio sit." If you read his Republic with attention, and Plato seems to have been very well pleased particularly the fifth book, you will see that' with his doctrine; for, in the very book in the prevailing idea of this philosopher iswhat which he writes what we have just seen, he we have just explained. Let us hear Aristotle lays down the famous maxim, that the evils on the same pint: "As the object of society," of states will never be remedied, that societies he says, " is one, it is clear that the education will never be well governed, until philosophers of all its members ought necessarily to be one shall become kings, or kings become philoso. and identical. Education ought to be public, phers. God preserve us from seeing on the and not private; as things now are, each one throne a philosophy such as his! Moreover, takes care of his children as he thinks proper, his wish for the reign of philosophy has been and teaches them as he pleases. Each citizen realized in modern times. What do I say? It is a particle of society, and the care to be has had more than empire; it has been deified, given to a particle ought naturally to extend and divine honors have been paid to it in to what.the whole requires." (Polit. 1. viii. public temples. I do not believe, however, c. 1.) In orderto explain to us what he means that the'happy days of the worship of reason by this common education, he concludes by are now much regretted. quoting with honor the education which was The horrible doctrine which we have just given at Sparta, which every one knows conseen in Plato was transmitted with fidelity to sisted in stifling all feelings except a ferocious future schools. Aristotle, who on so many patriotism, the traits of which still make us points took the liberty of departing from the shudder. doctrines of his master, did not think of cor- With our ideas and custdms, we do not know recting those which regard abortion and in- how to confine ourselves to considering society fanticide. In his Politics he teaches the same in this way. Individuals among us are atcrimes with the same calmness as Plato: "In tached to the social body, forming a part of it, order," he says, "to avoid nourishing weak or but without losing their own sphere-that of lame children, the law should direct them to the family; and they preserve around them a be exposed or made away with." "Propter vast career, where they are allowed to exert multitudinem autem liberorum, ne plures sint themselves, without coming into collision with quam expediat, si gentium instituta et leges the colossus of society. Nevertheless, patriotvetent procreata exponi, definitum esse oportet isin exists; but it is no longer a blind instincprocreandorum liberorum numerum. Quod si tive passion, urging man on to the sacrifice, quibus inter se copulatis et congressis, plures like a victim, with bandaged eyes, but it is no' liberi, quam definitum sit, nascantur, prius- reasonable, noble, and exalted feeling, which quam sensus et vita inseratur, abortus est forms heroes like those of Lepanto and Bayfcetui interendus." (Polit. 1. vii. c. 16.) len; which converts peaceful citizens, like It will be seen how much reason I had to those of Gyronna anl Saragossa, into lions; say that man, as ntan, was esteemed as noth- which, as by an electric spark, makes a whole ing among the ancients; that society entirely people rise on a sudden without arms, and absorbed him; that it claiiqed unjust rights brave death from the artillery of a numerous over him, and regarded him as an instrument and disciplined army: such was Madrid, folto be used when of service, and which it had lowing the sublime Jlouronls of Daoiz and of a right to destroy. Velarda. We observe in the writings of the ancient I have already hinted, in the text, that sophilosophers, that they make of society a kind ciety among the ancients claimed the right of of whole, consisting of individuals, as the mass interfering in all that regards individuals. I of iron consists cf the atoms that compose will add, that the thing went to a ridiculous it; they make of it a sort of unity, to which extent. Who would imagine that the law all must be sacrificed; they have no considera- ought to interfere in the food of a woman who tioll for the sphere of individual liberty; they was. enceite, or in the exercise which she do not appear to dream that the object of should take every day? This is what Arissociety is the good, the happiness of individu- totle gravely says: "It is necessary that woals and families. According to them, this men who are enceinte should take particular unity is the principal good, with which no- care of their bodies; that they should avoid 444 NOTES. indulgence in luxury, and using food which is contri/buted to this degradation, and reduced too light and weak. The legislator easily at- her, among certain nations, to be nothing but a tains his end by prescribing and ordering them slave. Losing sight of the manners of other a daily walk, in order to go to honor and ven- nations, let us consider those of the Romans erate the gods, to whom it has been confided for a moment. Among them the formula, ubi by fate to watch over the formation of beings. tu Cayus ego Caya, seemed to indicate a subAtque hoc facile assequitur scriptor legum, si jection so slight, that it might almost be called eis iter aliquod quotidianum ad cultum vener- an equality; but in order to appreciate this ationemque deorum eorum, quibus sorte obti- equality, it is enough to recollect that, at git, ut praesint gignendis animantibus, injunx- Rome, a husband could put his wife to death erit ac mandaverit." (Polit. 1. vii. c. 16.) by his own authority, and that not only in the The action of laws extended to every thing; case of adultery, but for offences infinitely less it seems that, in certain cases, even the tears serious. In the time of Romulus, Egnacius of children could not escape this severity. Menecius was acquitted of a similar crime, "Those," says Aristotle, "who, by means of although his wife had done nothing more than laws, forbid children to cry and weep, are drink wine from a cask. These traits describe wrong: cries and tears serve as exercise for a nation, whatever importance you may besides children, and assist them in growing; they are think proper to attach to the solicitude of the an effort of nature, which relieves and invigo- Romans to prevent their matrons from becomrates those who are in pain." (Polit. 1. vii. ing addicted to wine. When Cato directed an c. 17.) embrace, as a proof of affection, among relations, These doctrines of the ancients-this man- for the purpose, as Pliny relates, of ascertaining ner of considering the relations of individuals whether the women smelt of wine, an temetum with society'-very well explain how castes olerent, it is true he showed his strictness; but and slavery could be regarded as natural it was an unworthy outrage offered to the among them. Who can be astonished at see- honor of the women themselves whose virtue ing whole races deprived of liberty, or regard- it pretended to preserve. There are some ed as incapable of partaking of the rights of remedies worse than the disease. other superior classes, when we see generations of innocent beings condemned to death, NOTE 18 157 and these conscientious philosophers not having the slightest scruple with respect to the The antichristian philosophy must have had legitimacy of so inhuman an act? It was not considerable influence on the desire to find that these philosophers had not happiness in among the barbarians the origin of the elevaview as the object of society; but they had tion of the female character in Europe, and of monstrous ideas with respect to the means of some other principles of our civilization. Indeed obtaining that happiness. as soon as you discover the source of these admirable qualities in the forests of Germany, NOTE 17, p. 146. Christianity is stripped of a portion of its honors; and what was its own and peculiar The reader will easily dispense with my glory is divided among many. I will not deny entering into details on the abject and shame- that the Germans of Tacitus are sufficiently ful condition of women among the ancients, poetical; but it is difficult to believe that the and in which they still are among the moderns real Germans were so to any extent. Some where Christianity does not prevail; moreover, passages inserted in the text add great force to my pen would be checked every moment by our conjecture; but what appears to me emistrict laws of modesty, if I were to attempt to nently calculated to dissipate all these illusions represent the characteristic features of this is, the history of the invasion by the barbarians, wretched picture. The inversion of ideas was above all that which has been written by eyesuch, that we hear men the most renowned for witnesses. The picture, far from continuing potheir gravity and moderation rave in the most etical, then becomes disgusting in the extreme. incredible manner on this point. We will lay This interminable succession of nations passes aside hundreds of examples which it would be before the eyes of the reader, like an alarming easy to adduce; but who is ignorant of the vision in an evil dream; and certainly the first scandalous advice of the sage Solon, with re- ideawhich occurs tousat thesightofthispicture spect to the lending of women for the purpose is, not to seek for any of the qualities of modern of improving the race? Who has not blushed civilization in these invading hordes; but the to read what the divine Plato, in his Republic, great difficulty is, to know how this chaos has says of the propriety and manner of making been reduced to order, and how it las been poswomen share in the public games? Let us sible to produce from such 1 trbarism the throw a veil over recollections so dishonour- noblest and most brilliant civilization that has able to human wisdom. When the chief legis- ever been seen on earth. Tacitus appears to ators and sages so far forgot the first elements be an enthusiast; but Sidonius, who wrote at of morality, and the most ordinary inspirations no great distance from the barbarians, who of nature, what must have been the case with saw them, and suffered from meeting them, the vulgar? How fearfully true those words does not partake of this enthusiasm. "I find of the sacred text which represent to us the myself," he said, "among long-haired nations, nations deprived of the light of Christianity as compelled to hear the German language, and sitting in darkness and in the shadow of death! to applaud, at whatever cost, the song of tho There is nothing more fatal to woman, no- drunken Burgundian, with hair plastered with thing more apt to degrade her, than that which rancid grease. Happy your eyes who do not see is injurious to modesty: ind yet we see that them; happy your ears who do not hear them. P" the unlimited power granted to man over woman If space permitted, it would be easy for me to NOTES. 445 accumulate a thousand passages which would content myself, however, with a few words evidently show what the barbarians were, and on the ancients, in order to show how corwhat could be expected from them in all re- rect I was in saying that our manners, however spects. It is as clear as the light of day, that corrupt they may be, would have appeared it was the design of Providence to employ these a model, of morality and dignity to the heanations to destroy the Roman empire, and thens. change the face of the world. The invaders The temples consecrated to Venus in Babyseem to have had a feeling of their terrible lon and Corinth are connected with abominamission. They march, they advance, they tions such as to be even incomprehensible. know not whither they go; but they know well Deified passion required sacrifices worthy of it; that they go to destroy. Attila called himself a divinity without modesty required the sacrithe scourge of God. The same barbarian him- fice of modesty; and the sacred name of self defined his formidable duty in these words: Temple was applied to asylums of the most " The ktar falls, the sea is moved; I amn the unbridled licentiousness. There was not a veil hammer of the earth. Where my horse passes, even for the greatest crimes. It is known how the grass never grows." Alaric, marching to- the daughters of Chypre gained a dowry for wards the capital of the world, said: "I cannot their marriage; all have heard of the mysteries stop; there is some one urges me, who excites me of Adonis, Priapus, and other impure divinities. to sack Rome." Genseric prepares a naval ex- There are vices which, as it were, want a name pedition; his troops are on board, he himself among the moderns: or if they have one, it is embarks: no one knows the point towards accompanied by the recollection of a terrible which he will direct his sails. The pilot ap- chastisement inflicted on some criminal cities. preaches the barbarian, and asks him; " My In reading the histories of antiquity descriptive lord, against what nations will you wage war " of the manners of their times, the book falls "Against those who have provoked the anger of from our hands. On this subject we must be God," replies Genseric. content with these few hints, calculated to If Christianity, in the midst of this catastro- awaken in the minds of our readers the recolphe, had not existed in Europe, civilization lection of what has a thousand times excited would have been lost and annihilated, perhaps their indignation in reading the history and forever. But a religion of light and love was studying the literature of pagan antiquity. sure to triumph over ignorance and violence. The author is compelled to be satisfied with a Even during the times of the calamities of the recollection: he abstains from a description. invasion, that religion prevented many disasters, owing to the ascendency which it beganNOTE 20. 171 to exercise over the barbarians; the most critical moment being past, the conquerors It is now so common to exalt beyond measure having become in some degree settled, she the power of ideas, that some persons will perimmediately employed a system so vast, so haps consider exaggerated what I have said efficacious, so decisive, that the conquerors with respect to their want of power, not only to found themselves conquered, not by arms, but influence society, but even to preserve themby charity. It was not in the power of the selves, while, remaining in the mere sphere of Church to prevent the invasion; God had de- ideas, they do not become realized in institucreed it, and His decree must be accomplished. tions, which are their organ, and at the same Thus the pious monk who went to meet Alaric time their rampart and defence. approaching Rome, could not stop him on his I am very far, as I have clearly stated in the march, because the barbarian answered him, text, from denying or calling in question what that he could not stop,-that there was some is called the power of ideas: I only mean to one who urged him on, and that he advanced show that, alone and by themselves, ideas have against his own will. But the Church awaited little power; and that science, properly so the barbarians after the conquest, knowing that called, as far as the organization of society is Providence would not abandon His own work, concerned, is a much less important thing than that the hope of the future lot of nations was is generally supposed. This doctrine has an left in the hands-of the spouse of Jesus Christ; intimate connection with the system followed on this account does Alaric advance on Rome, by the Catholic Church, which, while consack, and destroy it; but on a sudden, finding stantly endeavoring to develope the human himself in presence of religion, he stops, be- mind by means of the propagation of the comes mollified, and appoints the Churches of sciences, has nevertheless assigned to them a St. Peter and St. Paul as places of refuge. A secondary part in the regulation of society. remarkable fact, and an admirable symbol of the While religion has never been opposed to true Christian religion preserving the universe from science, never, on the other hand, has she total ruin. ceased to show a certain degree of mistrust with respect to all that was the exclusive proNOTE 19, p. 165. duction of human thought; and observe that this is one of the chief differences between re. The great benefit conferred on modern ligion and the philosophy of the last age; or, society by the formation of a pure and correct we should rather say, it was the cause of their public conscience, would acquire extraordinary violent antipathy. Religion did not condemn value in our eyes, if we compared our moral science; on the contrary; she loved, protected, ideas with those of all other nations, ancient and encouraged it; but at the same time she and modern; the result of such an examination marked out its limits, warned it that it was would be, to show in how lamentable a manner blind on some points, announced to it that it good principles become corrupted, when they would be powerless in some of its labors, and are confided to the reason of man. I will that in others its action would be destructive 2N 446 NOTES. and fatal. Philosophy, on the contrary, loudly proclaimed the sovereignty of science, declared NOT 1 it to be all-powerful, and deified it; it attri- buted to it strength and courage to change the I have attributed to Christianity the gentle. face of the world, and wisdom and foresight ness of manners which Europe now enjoys. enough to work this change for the good of Yet, in spite of the decline of religious belief humanity. This pride of knowledge, this dei- in the last century, this gentleness of manners, fication of thought, is, if you observe closely, instead of being destroyed, has only been the foundation of Protestant doctrine. All raised to a higher degree. This contrast, the authority being taken away, reason is the only effect of which, at first sight, is to destroy competent judge, the intellect receives directly what I have established, requires some expla. and immediately from God all the light which nation. First of all, we must recollect the disis necessary. This is the fundamental doctrine tinction pointed out in the text between effemof Protestantism, that is to say, the pride of inacy and gentleness of manners. The first is the mind. a fault, tha second a valuable quality; the first If we closely observe, even the triumph'of emanates from enervation of the mind and revolutions has in no degree nullified the wise weakening of the body; the second is owing anticipations of religion; and knowledge, pro- to the preponderance of reason, the empire of perly so called, instead of gaining any credit the mind over the body, the triumph of justice from this triumph, has entirely lost what it over force, of right over might. There is a had: there remains nothing of the revolu- large portion of real gentleness in manners at tionary knowledge; what remains is the effects the present day, but luxury has. nlsn a anRildof the revolution, the interests created by it, erable part therein. This luxury of manners the institutions which have arisen from those has certainly not arisen from religion, but from interests, and which, since that time, have infidelity; the latter, never extending its view sought in the department of science itself our beyond the present life, causes the lofty destiprinciples to support them,-principles alto- nies, and even the very existence of the soul, gether different from those which had been to be forgotten, puts egotism upon the throne, proclaimed in the beginning. constantly excites and keeps alive the love of I have said that every idea has need of being pleasure, and makes man the vile slave of his realized in an institution; this is so true, that passions. On the contrary, at the first sight, revolutions themselves, warned by the instinct we perceive that our manners owe all their which leads them to preserve, with more or less gentleness to Christianity; all the ideas, all integrity, the. principles whence they have the feelings, on which this gentleness is foundarisen, tend from the first to create those insti- ed, bear the mark of Christianity. The digtutions in which the revolutionary doctrines nity of man, his rights, the obligation of treatmay be perpetuated, or to constitute succes- ing him with the respect which is due to him, sors to represent them when they shall have and of appealing to his mind by reason rather disappeared from the schools. This may lead than to his body by violence, the necessity imto many reflections on the origin and present posed on every one of keeping within the line condition of several forms of governments in of his duty, of respecting the property and the different countries of Europe. persons of others,-all this body of principles, When speaking of the rapidity with which to which real gentleness of manners is owing, scientific theories succeed each other, when is due, in Europe, to the influence of Christipointing out the immense, development which anity, which, after a struggle of many centuthe press has given to the field of discussion, I ries against the barbarism and ferocity of have shown that this was not an infallible sign invading nations, succeeded in destroying the of scientific progress, still less a guarantee for system of violence which these same nations the fertility of human thought in realizing had made general. great things in the material and social order. As philosophy has taken care to change the I have said that grand conceptions proceed ancient names consecrated by religion, and rather from intuition than from discourses; and authorized by the usage of a succession of on this subject I have recalled to mind histori- ages, it happens that some ideas, although the cal events and personages which place this produce of Christianity, are scarcely acknowmatter beyond a doubt. In support of this ledged assuch, only because they are disguised assertion, ideology might have furnished us under a worldly dress. Who does not know with abundant proofs, if it were necessary to that mutual love among men and fraternal have recourse to science itself to prove its own charity are ideas entirely due to Christianity? sterility. But mere good sense, taught by the Who does not know that pagan antiquity did essons of experience daily, is enough to con- not acknowledge them, that it even despised vince us that the men who are the most able them? And nevertheless, this affection, which in theory are, often enough, not only mediocre, was formerly called charity, because charity but even weak in the exercise of authority. was the virtue from which it took its legitimate With regard to the hints which I have thrown origin, has constantly taken care to assume out with respect to "intuition "and "dis-other names, as if it were ashamed to be seen courses," I leave them to the judgment of any in public with any appearance of religion. one who has applied to tne study of the hu- The mania for attacking the Christian religion man mind. I am. confident that the opinion beiig passed, it is openly confessed that the of those who have reflected will not differ principle of universal charity is owing to her; trem my own. but language remains infected with Voltairian philosophy even since the discredit into which that philosophy has fallen. Whence it follows, that we very often do not appreciate as we NOTES. 447 Ought the influence of Christianity on the so- barbarism, they used the right of punishment ciety which surrounds us, and that we attri- with a moderation which is not found even bute to other ideas and other causes the phe- among the most civilized and refined nations. nomena which are evidently owing to religion. If- we regard the thing in this point of view, Society at present, in spite of all its indiffer- it seems as if the influence of Christianity on ence, is more indebted to religion than is the barbarians had the effect of rendering their commonly supposed; it resembles those men, manners more harsh instead of more gentle; who, born of an illustrious family, in which indeed, after Christianity was introduced, the good principles and a careful education are infliction of corporal punishments became gentransmitted as an inheritance from generation eral, and even that of death was not excluded. to generation, preserve in their manners and But when we attentively consider this pecubehavior, even in the midst of their disorders, liarity of the criminal code of the barbarians, their crimes, and I will even venture to say, we shall see that, far from showing the advancetheir degradation, some traits which denote ment of their civilization and the gentleness of their noble origin. their manners, it is, on the contrary, the most. evident proof that they were behind-hand; it NOTE 22, p. 183. is the strongest index of the harshness and barbarism which reigned among them. Inthe first A few regulations of Councils, quoted in the place, inasmuch as crimes among them were text, are sufficient to give an idea of the sys- punished by means of fines, or, as it was called, tern pursued by the Church for the purpose of by composition, i: is clear that the law paid reforming and softening manners. It may be much more attention to repairing an inju'ry remarked that, on previous occasions during than to putishing a crime; a circumstance this work, I have a strong inclination to call which clearly shows us how little they thought to mind monuments of this kind; I will state about the morality of the action, as they athere that I have two reasons for doing this: tended not so much to the action itself, as to 1. When having to compare Protestantism with the wrong which it inflicted. Therefore this Catholicity, I believe that the best means of was not an element of civilization but of bar representing the real spirit of the latter is, to barism; this tended to nothing less than the show it at work; this is done when we bring banishment of morality from the world. The to light the measures which were adopted, ac- Church combated this principle, as fatal in pubcording to different circumstances, by Popes lie as in private affairs; she introduced into and Councils. 2. Considering the direction criminal legislation a new set of ideas, which which historical studies take in Europe, and completely changed its spirit. On this point the taste, which is daily becoming more gen- M. Guizot has done full justice to the Catholic eral, not for histories, but for historical docu- Church. I am delighted to acknowledge and to merts, it is proper always to bear in mind that insert this homage here by transcribinghis own the proceedings of Councils are of the highest words. After having pointed out the difference importance, not only in historical and ecclesi- which existed between the laws of the Visiastical matters, but also in political and social goths, derived in great part from the Councils ones; so that to pay no attention to the data of Toledo, and the other barbarian laws, M. which are found in the records of Councils, is Guizot signalizes the immense superiority of monstrously to mutilate, or rather wholly to the ideas of the Church in matters of legisladestroy, the history of Europe. tion, of justice, and in all that concerns the On this account it is very useful, and even search after truth and the lot of men; he adds: necessary in many things, to consult these re-" In criminal matters, the relation of crimes to cords, although it may be painful to our indo- punishments is fixed (in the laws of the Visilence, on account of their enormous extent and goths) according to sufficiently just, philosothe ennui of finding many things devoid of in- phical, and moral notions. We there perceive terest for our times. The sciences. above all the efforts of an enlightened legislator, who those which have society for their object, lead contends against the violence and rashness of to satisfactory results only by means of pain- barbarian manners. The chapter De ccede et ful labors. What is useful is frequently mixed morte honminum, compared with the correspondand confounded with what is not. The most ing laws of other nations, is a very remarkavaluable things are sometimes found by the hle example of this. Elsewhere, it is almost side of repulsive objects; but in nature, do we exclusively the injury which seems to constifind gold without having removed rude masses tute the crime, and the punishment is sought of earth? in that material reparation which is the result Those who have attempted to find the germ of composition. Here, the crime is referred to of the precious qualities of European civiliza- its real and moral element, the intention. The tion among the barbarians of the north, should different shades of criminality, absolutely voundoubtedly have attributed the gentleness of luntary homicide, homicide by inadvertence, our manners to the same barbarians; they provoked homicide, homicide with or without would have had in support of this paradox a premeditation, are distinguished and defined fact certainly more specious than that which almost as well as in our own codes, and the they have relied on to give the honor of ele- punishments vary in a proportion equally just. vating European women to the Germans. I The justice of the legislator has gone still allude to the well-known custom of avoiding further. He has attempted, if not to abolish, the infliction of corporal punishments, and of at least to diminish the diversity of legal value chastising the gravest offences by fines only. established among men by the other barbarian Nothing is more likely to make us believe that laws. The only distinction which it preserves these nations were happily inclined to gentle- is that of freeman and slave. With respect to ness of manners, since, in the midst of their freeman, the punishment varies neither with 448 NOTES. the origin nor the rank of the deceased, but ing them to remain reduced to the level of a only according to the different degrees of the mere material reparation. Hence we see that culpability of the murderer. With regard to the criminal system of the barbarians, which, slaves, not venturing completely to withdraw at the first view, seemed to indicate progress in from the masters the right of life and death, it civilization, was, in reality, owing to the little has been attempted at least to restrain it by ascendency which moral principles exercised subjecting it to a public and regular procedure. over these nations, and to the fact, that the The text of the law deserves to be cited. views of the legislator were very slightly raised " If no one guilty of, or an accomplice in, above the purely material order. a crime ought to remain unpunished, with how There is another observation to be m'ade on much more reason ought he to be condemned this point, viz. that the mildness with which who has wickedly and rashly committed a ho- crimes were punished is the best proof of the micide! Thus, as masters, in their pride, often frequency with which they were committed. put their slaves to death without any fault of When in a country assassinations, mutilations, the latter, it is proper altogether to extirpate and other similar attempts are very rare, they this license, and to ordain that the presentlaw are regarded with horror; those who are guilty shall be forever observed by all. No. master of them are chastised with severity. But when or mistress shall put to death, without public crimes are very frequently committed, they intrial, any of their slaves, male or female, or sensibly lose their enormity; not only those any person dependent on them. If a slave or who commit them, but all the world become any other servant shall commit a crime which accustomed to their hideous aspect, and the lemay subject him to capital punishment, his gislator is then naturally induced to treat them master or his accuser shall immediately inform with indulgence. This is shown us by the exthe judge or the count or duke of the place perience of every day; and the reader will have where the deed has been committed. After the no difficulty in finding in society at the preaffair has been inquired into, if the crime be sent time more than one crime to which the re. proved, let the criminal undergo, either by the mark which I have just made is applicable. judge or his own master, the sentence of death Among the barbarians, it was common to &pwhich he has deserved; so that, nevertheless, peal to force, not only with respect to property, if the judge be unwilling to put the accused to but also to persons; wherefore it was natural death, he shall draw up in writing a capital that crimes of this kind should not be regardsentence, and then it shall be in the power of ed by them with the same aversion, it may be the master to put him to death or not. Indeed, said with the same horror, as among a people if the slave, with a fatal audacity, resisting his where the triumph of the ideas of reason, jusmaster, has struck, or attempted to strike, him tice, right, and law, render it impossible to conwith a weapon, with a stone, or with any other ceive even the existence of a society where kind of blow, and if the master, in defending each individual should believe himself self-enhimself, has killed the slave in his passion, the titled to do justice to himself. Thus the laws master shall be in no way subject to the punish- against these crimes naturally became milder, ment of homicide. But it shall be necessary the legislator contenting himself with repairto prove that the event took place thus, and ing the injury, without paying much attention that by the testimony or oath of the slaves, to the culpability of the delinquent. And'this male or female, who shall have been present, is intimately connected with what I have said and by the oath of the author of the deed him- above with respect to public conscience; for self. Whoever from mere malice, either by his the legislator is alwaysmore or less the organ own hand or that of another, shall have killed of this public conscience. Where an action, his slave without public trial, shall be marked in any society whatever, is regarded as a heinwith infamy, declared incapable of appearing ous offence, the legislator cannot decree a mild as a witness, shall be obliged to pass the rest punishment for it; on the other hand, it is not of his life in exile and penance, and his goods possble for him to chastise with great severity shall go to the nearest relations to whom they what the society absolves or excuses. It will are given by the law.' —For. Judd. liv. vi. tit. sometimes happen that this proportion will be xv. 1. 12." (Hist. Ge'er. de la Civilisation en altered, that this harmony will be destroyed; Europe, leqon 6.) but things soon quitting the path into which I have copied this passage from M. Guizot violence forced them, will not be long in returnwith pleasure, because I find there a confirma- ing to their ordinary course. Manners being tion of what I have just said on the subject of chaste and pure, offences against them will be the influence of the Church in softening man- covered with abhorrence and infamy; but if ners, and of what I have before stated with res- r orals be corrupted, the same acts will be repect to the great amelioration which the Church garded with indifference; at the most they will made in the condition of slaves, by limiting be denominated slight weaknesses. Among a the excessive power of their masters. This people where religious ideas exercise great intruth is proved in its place by so many docu- fluence, the violation of all that is consements, that it seems useless to revert to it here; crated to God is regarded as a horrible out. it is enough now for my purpose, to point out rage, worthy of the greatest chastisements: that M. Guizot fully allows that the Church among another people, where infidelity has gave morality to the legislation of the barba- made its ravages, the same violation is not rians, by making them consider the wickedness even placed on the list of ordinary offences; of the crime, whereas they had previously at- instead of drawing on the guilty the justice tended only to the injury of which it was the of the law, scarcely does it draw on them cause; she has thus transferred the action from the slight correction of the police. The reader the physical to the moral order, giving to pu- will understand the appropriateness of this dinishments their real character, and not allow- gression on the criminal legislation of the bar. NOTES. 449 barians, when he reflects that, in order to exa- Never did she think that it was allowable for mine the influence of Catholicity on the civili- her to regard with indifference the abuses which zation of Europe, it is indispensable to take were introduced on this point to the prejudice into consideration the other elements which of the unfortunate; wherefore she has reserved have concurred in forming that civilization. at least the right to remedy the evils which Without this, it would be impossible properly might result from the wickedness or the indoto appreciate the respective action of each of lence of the administrators. The Council of these elements, either for good or evil; impos- Vienne ordains, that if the administrators of a sible to bring to light the share which the hospital, lay or clerical, become relaxed in the Church can exclusively claim in the great work exercise of their charge, proceedings shall be of our civilization; impossible to resolve the taken against them by the Bishops, who shall high question which has been raised by the reform and restore the hospital of their own partisans of Protestantism on the subject of the authority, if it has no privilege of exemption, assumed advantages which the religious revo- and by delegation, if it has one. The Council lution of the sixteenth century has conferred of Trent also granted to Bishops the power of on modern society. It is because the barbari- visiting the hospitals, even with the power of an nations are one of these elements, that it is delegates of the Apostolic See in the cases fixed so often necessary to attend to them. by law; it ordains, moreover, that the administrators, lay or clerical, shall be obliged every year to render their accounts to the ordinary NOTE 23, p. 189. of the place, unless the contrary has been proIn the middle ages, almost all the monaste- vided in the foundation; and that if, by virtue ries and colleges of canons had a hospital an- of a particular privilege, custom, or statute, the nexed to them, not only to receive pilgrims, accounts must be presented to any other than but also to aid in the support and consolation the ordinary, at least he shall be added to those of the poor and the sick. If you desire to see who are appointed to receive them. the noblest symbol of religion sheltering all Without paying attention to the different kinds of misfortune, consider the houses de- modifications which the laws and customs of voted to prayer and the most sublime virtues various countries may have introduced in this converted into asylums for the miserable. This matter, we will say that one thing remains was exactly what took place at that time, when manifest, viz. the vigilance of the Church in all the public authority not only wanted the thatregards beneficence; itis her constant tenstrength anld knowledge necessary to establish dency, by virtue of her spirit and maxims, to a good administration for the relief of the un- take part in affairs of this kind, sometimes to fortunate, but did not even succeed in covering direct them exclusively, sometimes to remedy with her aegis the most sacred interests of so- the evils which may have crept in. The civil ciety; this shows us that when all was power- power acknowledged the motives of this holy less, religion was still strong and fruitful; that and charitable ambition; we see that the Emwhen all perished, religion not only preserved peror Justinian does not hesitate to give public herself, but even founded immortal establish- authority over the hospitals to the Bishops, ments. And pay attention to what we have thereby conforming to the discipline of the so many times pointed out, viz. that the reli- Church and the general good. gion which worked these prodigies was not a On this point there is a remarkable fact, vague and abstract religion-the Christianity which it is necessary to mention here, in order of the Protestants; but religion with all her to signalize its beneficent influence; I mean, dogmas, her discipline, her hierarchy, her the regulation by which the property of hospisupreme Pontiff, in a word, the Catholic tals was looked upon as Church property,-a Church. regulation which was very far from being a They were far from thinking in ancient times matter of indifference, although at first sight it that the support of the unfortunate could be might appear so. Their property, thereby inconfided to the civil administration alone, or to vested with the same privileges as that of the individual charity; it was then thought, as I Church, was protected by an inviolability so have already said, that it was a very proper much the more necessary as the times were the thing that the hospitals should be subjected to more difficult, and the more abounding in outthe Bishops; that is to say, that there should rages and usurpations. The Church which, be a kind of assimilation made between the notwithstanding all the public troubles, presystem of public beneficence and the hierarchy served great authority and a powerful ascenof the Church. Hence it was that, by virtue dency over governments and nations, had thus of an ancient regulation, the hospitals were a simple and powerful claim to extend her under the control of the Bishops as well in protection over the property of hospitals, and temporals as in spirituals, whether the persons to withdraw them as much as possible from the appointed to the care of the establishments cupidity and the rapacity of the powerful. were clerical or lay, whether the hospital had And it must not be supposed that this doctrine been erected by order of the Bishop or not. was introduced with any indirect design, nor This is not the place to relate the vicissitudes that this kind of community, this assimilation which this discipline underwent, nor the dif- between the Church and the poor, was an unferent causes which produced the successive heard-of novelty; on the contrary, this assimichanges; it is enough to observe, that the fun- lation was so well suited to the common order damental principle, that is, the interference of of things, it was so entirely founded on the the ecclesiastical authority in establishments relations between the Church and the poor, of beneficence, always remained unimpaired, that if the property of the hospitals had the and that the Church never allowed herself to privilege of being considered as the property be entirely deprived of so noble a privilege. of the Church, that of the Church, on the other T 22 i50. NOTES. hand, was called the property of the poor. It This distinction; which, from its clearness is in these terms that the holy Fathers express and simplicity, is within the reach of the most themselves on this point: these doctrines had orlinary minds, has nevertheless been misso much affected the ordinary language, that taken by Rousseau, who affirms that it is a %hen, at a later period, the canonical question vain fiction, a chimera, which cannot be realwith respect to the ownership of the goods of ized, and that the two kinds of intolerance the Church had to be solved, there were found cannot be separated from each other. Rousby the side of those who directly attributed seau might have been content with observing, this property to God, to the Pope, to the clergy, that religious intolerance, that is to say, as I some who pointed out the poor as being the have explained above, the firm conviction that real proprietors. It is true that this opinion a religion is true, if it is general in a country, was not the most conformable to the principles must produce, in the ordinary intercourse of of law; but the mere fact of its appearing on life as well as in legislation, a certain tendency the field of controversy is a matter for grave not to tolerate any one who thinks differently, consideration. principally when those who dissent are very limited in number; his observation would then NOTE 24, p. 196. have been well founded, and would have agreed with the opinion which I have expressed onA few reflections, in the form of a note, on a this point, when I attempted to represent the certain maxim of toleration professed by a phi- natural course of ideas and events in this matlosopher of the last century, Rousseau, would ter. But Rousseau does not consider things not be out of place here; but the analogy of under this aspect: desiring to attack Cathothe following chapter with that which we have licity, he affirms that the two kinds of intolejust finished induces us to reserve them for rance are inseparable; "for," says he, "it is note 25. The considerations to which the impossible to live in peace with those whom opinion of Rousseau will lead, apply to the one believes to be damned; to love them would question of toleration in religious matters, as be to hate God, who punishes them." It is well as to the right of coercion exercised by impossible to carry misrepresentation further: the civil and political power; I therefore beg who told Rousseau that the Catholics believe my reader to reserve fo,r the following note in the damnation of any man, whoever he may the attention which he might be willing to af- be, as long as he lives; and that they think ford me now. that to love a man who is in error would be to hate God? On the contrary, could he be igno.. NOTE 25, p. 203. rant that it is a duty, an indispensable precept, a dogma, for Catholics to love all men? Could For the purpose of clearing up ideas on tole- he be ignorant that even children, in the first ration as far as lay in my power, I have pre- rudiments of Christian doctrine, learn that we sented this matter in a point of view but little are obliged to love our neighbor as ourselves, known; in order to throw still more light upon and that by this word neighbor is meant whoit, I will say a few words on religious and civil ever has gained heaven, or may gain it; so that intolerance,-things which are entirely differ- no man, so long as he lives, is excluded from ent, although Rousseau absolutely affirms the this number? But Roasseau will say, you are contrary. Religious or theological intolerance at least convinced that those who die in that consists in the conviction, that the only true fatal state are condemned. Rousseau does not religion is the Catholic,-a conviction common observe that we think exactly the same with to all. Catholics. Civil intolerance consists in respect to sinners, although their sin be not not allowing in society any other religions that of heresy; now, it has not come into the than the Catholic. These two definitions are head of any body that good Catholics cannot sufficient to make every man of cbmmon sense tolerate sinners, and that they consider themunderstand that the two kinds of intolerance selves under the obligation, of hating them. are not inseparable; indeed, we may very What religion shows more eagerness to convert easily conceive that men firmly convinced of the wicked? The Catholic Church is so far the truth of Catholicity may tolerate those who from teaching that we ought to hate them, that profess another religion, or none at all. Reli- she causes to be repeated a thousand times, in gious intolerance is an act of the mind, an act pulpits, in books, and in conversations, those inseparable from faith; indeed, whoever has a words whereby God shows that it is His will firm belief that his own religion is true, must that sinners shall not perish, that He wills that necessarily be convinced that it is the only they shall be converted and live, that there is true one; for the truth is one. Civil intole- more joy in heaven when one of them has done rance is an act whereby the will rejects those penance, than upon the ninety-nine just who who do not profess the same religion; this act need not penance. And let it not be imagined has different results, according as the intole- that the man who thus expresses himself rance is in the individuals or in the govern- against the intolerance of Catholics was the ment. On the other hand, religious tolerance partizan of complete toleration; on the colconsists in believing that all religions are true; trary, in society, such as he imagined it, he which, when rightly understood, means that did not desire toleration for those who did not none are true, since it is impossible for contra- belong to the religion which the civil power dictory things to be true at the same time. thought proper to establish. It is true that he Civil tolerance is, to allow men who entertain a is not at all anxious that the citizens should different religion to live in peace. This tole- belong to the true religion. "Laying aside," rance, as well as the co-relative intolerance, he says, "political considerations, let us return produces different effects, according as it exists to the right, and let us lay down princip'es on in individuals or in the government. this important point. The right which the NOTES. 451 scital pact gives to the stvereign over his sub- the philosopher of Geneva, although some of ject does not exceed, as I have said, the his timid partisans still lavish on him unmeabounds of public utility. Subjects, therefore, sured eulogies. Let, us have sufficient confiare accountable to their sovereign for their dence in the good sense of the human race, to opinions, inasmuch as those opinions are of hope that all posterity, with a unanimous voice, importance to the community. Now, it is of will confirm the stamp of ignominy with which great importance to the state, that every citi- all men of sense have already marked that zen should have a religiun which shall make turbulent sophist, the impudent author of the him love his duties; but the dogmas of that Conlfessions. religion interest the state and its members only When comparing Protestantism with Cathoinasmuch as those dogmas affect morality and licity, I was obliged to treat of intolerance, as the duties which those who profess it are it is one of the reproaches which are most frebound to perform towards others. As for the quently made against the Catholic religion; rest, each one may have what opinions he but my respect for truth compels me to state, pleases, without being subject to the cogni- that all Protestants have not preached universal zance of the sovereign, for he has no power in toleration; and that many of them have acthe other world; it is not his affair what may knowledged the right of checking and punishing be the lot of his subjects in the life to come, certain errors. Grotius, Puffendorf, and some provided they be good citizens in this. There more of the wisest men that Protestantism can is, therefore, a profession of faith purely civil, boast of, are agreed on this point; therein they the articles whereof it belongs to the sovereign have followed the example of all antiquity, to fix, not exactly as dogmas of religion, but which, in theory as well as in practice, has as social sentiments, without which it is im- constantly conformed to these principles. A possible to be a good citizen or a faithful sub- cry has been raised against the intolerance of ject. Without being able to compel any one Catholics, as if they had been the first to teach to believe them, it can banish from the state it to the world; as if intolerance was a cursed him who does not believe them; it can banish monster, which was engendered only where the him, not as wicked, but as anti-social, as inca- Catholic Church prevailed. In default of any pable of sincerely loving the laws and justice, other reason, good faith at least required that and of sacrificing his life to his duty. If any it should not be forgotten that the principle of one, after having publicly acknowledged these universal toleration was never acknowledged dogmas, conducts himself as if he did not be- in any part of the world; the books of philolieve them, let him be punished with death; he sophers, and the codes of legislators, contain has committed the.greatest of crimes, he has the principle of intolerance with more or less lied against the laws." (Du Contrat Social, 1. rigor. Whether it were desired to condemn iv. c. 8.) this principle as false, or to limit it, or to leave Such, then, is the final result of the toleration it without application, it is clear that an accuof Rousseau, viz. to give to the sovereign the sation ought not to have been made against the power of fixing articles of faith, to grant to him Catholic Church in particular, on account of the right of punishing with banishment, or a doctrine and conduct, wherein she only con. even death, those who will not conform to the formed to the example of the whole human decisions of this new Pope, or who shall violate race. Refined as well as barbarous nations after having embraced them. However strange would be culpable therein, if there were any the doctrine of Rousseau may appear, it is not crime; and the stigma, far from deserving to excluded from the general system of those who fall upon governments directed by Catholicity, do not acknowledge the supremacy of authority or on Catholic writers, ought to be inflicted on in religious matters. When this supremacy is to all the governments of antiquity, including be attributed to the Catholic Church, or its those of Greece and Rome; on all the ancient head, it is rejected; and, by the most striking sages, including Plato, Cicero, and Seneca; on contradiction, it is granted to the civil power. modern governments and sages, including ProIt is very singular that Rousseau, when ban- testants. If men had had this present to their ishing or putting to death the man who quits minds, the doctrine would not have appeared the religion fashioned by the sovereign, does so erroneous, nor the facts so black; they not wish him to be punished as impious, but as would have seen that intolerance, as old as the anti-social. Rousseau, following an impulse world, was not the invention of Catholics, and very natural in him, did not wish that impiety that the whole world, ought to bear the re should be at all taken into account when sponsibility of. it. punishments were to be inflicted; but of what Assuredly the toleration which, in our days, consequence is the name given to his crime to has become so general, from causes previously the man who is banished or put to death? In pointed out, will not be affected by the docthe same chapter, he allows an expression to trines, more or less severe, more or less indulescape him, which reveals at once the object gent, which shall be proclaimed in this matter; which he had in view in all this show of philo- but for the very reason, that intolerance, such sophy: "Whoever dares to affirm that out of as it was practised in other times, has at last the ChUrch there is no salvation, ought to be become a mere historical fact, whereof no one driven from the state." Which means, in other can fear the re-appearance, it is proper to enter words, that toleration ought to be given to all into an attentive examination of questions of except Catholics. It has been said, that the this kind, in order to remove the reproach Contrat Social was the code of the French which her enemies have attemptedto cast upon revolution; and, indeed, the latter did not for- the Catholic Church. get what the tolerant legislator has prescribed The recollection of the encyclical letter of with respect to Catholics. Few persons now the Pope against the doctrines of M. de Laventure to declare themselves the disciples of mennais, and the profound wisdom contained 452 NOTES. therein appropriately presents itself here. derstand how the principle of intoler:r.ce That writer maintained that universal tolera- should be understood, and what use ought to tion, the absolute liberty of worship, is the be made of it, the Inquisition has been mild normal andlegitimate state of society,-a state and indulgent in the extreme. Rome is the which cannot be changed without injury to the part of the world where humanity has sufrights of the man and the citizen. M. de La- fered the least for the sake of religion; and mennais, combatting the encyclical letter, that, without the exception of any countries, attempted to show that it established new doc- either of those where the Inquisition has extrines, and attacked the liberty of nations. isted, or of those where it has been unknown, No; the Pope, in his encyclical letter, does not of those where Catholicity has. been predolmimaintain any other doctrines than those which nant, or where Protestantism has triumphed. have been professed up to this time by the This fact, which cannot be denied, should suffice Church-we may say by all governments-to convince every sincere man what is the with respect to toleration. No government spirit of Catholicity in this matter. can sustain itself if it is refused the right of I make these remarks in order to show.my repressing doctrines dangerous to social order, impartiality, to prove that I am not ignorant whether those doctrines are covered with the of evils, and that I do not hesitate to admit mantle of philosophy, or disguised under the them wherever I find them. Notwithstanding veil of religion. The liberty of man is not this, I am desirous that the facts and the obthereby assailed; for the only liberty which is servations contained in the text, as well with worthy of the name, is liberty in conformity respect to the Inquisition itself, and. to the difwith reason. The Pope did not say that go- ferent epochs of its duration, as to the policy vernments cannot, in certain cases, tolerate of the kings who founded and established it, different religions; but he did not allow it to shall not be forgotten. The same desire makes be established as a principle, that absolute me transcribe here a few documents likely to toleration is an obligation on all governments. throw a stronger light upon this important subThis proposition is contrary to sound religious ject. In the first place, I will quote the doctrines, to reason, to the practice of all preamble of the Pragmatic Sanction of the governments, in all times and countries, and Catholic princes Ferdinand and Isabella, for the good sense of mankind. The talent and the explusion of the Jews; we there find stateloquence of the unfortunate author have not ed in a few words, the outrages which the Jews availed against this, and the Pope has obtained inflicted on religion, and the dangers with the most solemn assent of all sensible men of which they threatened the state. all creeds; while the man of genius, covering "Book viii. chap. 2, second law of the new his brow with the shades of obstinacy, has not Recopilacion. Don Ferdinand and Donna Isafeared to seize upon the ignoble arms of so- bella, at Granada, 30th March, 1492. Pragphistry. Unhappy genius! who scarcely pre- matic Sanction. serves a shadow of himself, who has folded up " Having been informed that there existed in the splendid wings on which he sailed through these kingdoms bad Christians, who judaized the azure sky, and now, like a bird of evil and apostatized from our holy Catholic faith, omen, broods over the impure waters of a soli- whereof the communication between the Jews tary lake. and Christians was in great part the cause, we ordained, in the Cortes held by us in Toledo, NOTE 26, p. 219. in 1480, that the Jews in all the cities, towns, and other places of our kingdoms and lordships, When speaking of the Spanish Inquisition, should be confined in the Juiferies and places I do not undertake to defend all its acts either appointed for them to live and dwell in, hopin point of justice, or of the public advantage. ing that this separation would serve as a reWithout denying the peculiar circumstances medy; we also provided and gave orders that in which this institution was placed, I think an Inquisition should be appointed in our said that it would have done much better, after the kingdoms; which Inquisition, as you know, is example of the Inquisition of Rome, to avoid and has been practised for more than twelve as much as possible the effusion of blood. It years, and has discovered a great number of might have perfectly watched over the pre- delinquents, as is notorious. As we have been servation of the faith, prevented the evils informed by the Inquisitors, and many other wherewith religion was threatened bythe Moors religious persons, lay and ecclesiastical, it is and the Jews, and preserved Spain from Pro- certain that great injury to the Christians had testantism, without employing that excessive been and is the result of the participation, inrigor, which drew upon it the severe and de- tercourse, and communication which they have served reprimands and admonitions of the had, and still have, with the Jews; it has been Sovereign Pontiffs, provoked the complaints proved that the latter, by all the means in their of the people, made so many accused and con- power, constantly labor to subvert the faith demned persons appeal to Rome, and furnished of Christians, to withdraw them from our holy the adversaries of Catholicity with a pretext Catholic faith, to lead them away from it, to for charging that religion with being sangui- attract them, and to pervert them to their own nary which has a horror of the effusion of noxious creed and opinions; instructing them blood. I repeat, that the Catholic religion is in the ceremonies and observances of their own not responsible for any of the excesses which law; holding meetings tQ teach them what have been committed in her name; and when they ought to believe and observe according to men speak of the Inquisition, they ought not that law; taking care to circumcise them and to fix their eyes principally on that of Spain, their children, giving them books in order to but on that of Rome. There, where the Sove- recite their prayers, teaching them the fasts reign Pontiff resides, and where they best un- which they ought to observe, assembling to NOTES. 453 read with them, teaching them the histories of We are not now examining whether or not their laws; notifying to them the Paschal there is any exaggeration in these imputations times before they arrive, admonishing them as against the Jews, although, according to all to what they ought to do and observe during appearances, there mast have been a great those times; giving them, bringing for them, deal of foundation for them, in consequence of from their own homes, the bread of azimes, the situation in which the two rival nations meats killed according to their ceremonies; were placed. Observe, besides, that if the instructing them as to the things from which preamble of the Pragmatic Sanction is silent they ought to abstain, in order to obey the law, with respect to a hundred accusations brought as well in eating as in other things; persuad- against the Jews by the generality of the ing them, as far as they can, to adopt and keep people, the report of these crimes had not the the Law of Moses, and making them under- less weight with the public; consequently, the stand that no other law than that is true. All situation of the Jews was aggravated in an exthese things are certain from numerous testi- traordinary degree, and the princes were so monies, from the acknowledgments of the Jews much the more inclined to treat them with sethemselves, and of those who have been per- verity. verted and deceived by them, which has inflict- With respect to the mistrust with which the ed great injury, detriment, ar.d dishonor on Moors and their descendants must have been our holy Catholic faith. Although we were regarded, besides the facts pointed out above, already informed of these things from many others might be related which show the dispoquarters, and although we were aware that the sition of men's minds to see in the presence of real remedy for all these evils and inconveni- these men a permanent conspiracy against the ences was to place an insurmountable barrier Christians. Almost a century had elapsed since to the communication of the Jews with the the conquest of Granada, and it was still feared Christians, and to banish the Jews from our that this kingdom might be the centre of plots kingdoms, we wished to be satisfied with en- contrived by the Moors against the Christians, joining them to quit all the cities, towns, and the source of perfidious projects, and the place places of Andalusia, where it seemed that whence came the means of maltreating in all they had done the most mischief, believing ways the defenceless persons upon our coasts. that that would be enough to hinder those of Thus spoke Philip II. in 1567: the other cities, towns, and places of our king- "Book viii. chap. 2, of the new Recopilacion. doms and lordships from doing and committing "Law xx., which decrees severe punishwhat has been mentioned. But being inform- ments against the inhabitants of the kingdom ed that this measure, as well as the acts of of Granada who shall have hidden, received, justice exercised on some of the Jews who or favored the Turks, Moors, or Jews, or given were found guilty of these offences and crimes them intelligence, or corresponded with them. against our holy Catholic faith, do not suffice "D. Philip II., Madrid, 10 December, 1567. to remedy the evil thoroughly; for the purpose "Having been informed that, notwithstandof obviating and abolishing so great an oppro- ing what has been ordained by us, as well by brium, such an offence against the faith and sea as by land, particularly for the kingdom the Christian religion, since it appears that the of Granada, for the purpose of insuring the same Jews, with a fatal ardor, redouble their defence and security of our kingdoms, the perverse attempts wherever they live and asso- Turks, Moors, and corsairs have already comciate; wishing to suppress the occasion of of- mitted, and still commit, in the ports of this fending more against our holy Catholic faith, kingdom, on the coasts, in maritime places, as well on account of those persons whom it and those bordering on the sea, robberies, mishas pleased God up to this time to preserve, as deeds, injuries, and seizures of Christians; of those who, after having fallen, have repent- evils which are notorious, and which, it is said, ed and returned to our holy mother the Church; have been, and are, committed with ease and wishing to prevent the offences which, on ac- security, by favor of the intercourse and uncount of the weakness of our human nature, derstanding which the ravishers have had, and and the suggestions of the devil, which conti- still have, with some of the inhabitants of the nually make war on us, might easily occur, if country, who give them intelligence, guide the principal cause of the evil were not remov- them, receive them, hide them, and lend them ed by the expulsion of the Jews from our favor and assistance; some of them even going kingdoms; considering, besides, that when a away with the Moors and Turks, leading away great and detestable crime has been committed and carrying with them their wives, their chilby some members of a college or university, it dren, their goods, Christian captives, and the is reasonable that that college or that univer- things which they were able to ravish from the sity should be dissolved and destroyed, that Christians; while other inhabitants of the some may be punished on account of the same kingdom, who have participated in these others, and the lesser number on account of projects, or have been acquainted with them, the greater; that those who pervert the good remain in the country, without having been or and virtuous mode of life of cities and towns, being punished; for it appears that measures by a contagion which may injure others, may are not executed with due severity, nor as combe banished from those towns; and that if it pletely, or with as much care as they ought to be allowed to act thus for other slight causes be: as, moreover, it seems very difficult to get prejudicial to the state, there is still more rea- accurate information, as it appears that even son to allow it for the greatest, the most dan- the justices and the judges, to whom it bllongs gerous, the most contagious of crimes, that to make inquiries and to punish, have displayed which is in question: for all these reasons we, remissness and negligence in their employhaving consulted our Council, and taken the ment;-this having been agitated and discussadvice of some prelates," &c. ed in our Council, with the view of providing 454 NOTES. as is proper in a thing of such great import- them with their lives and fortunes, whereby aice, for the service of God our Master, for they were persuaded of the facility of the enour own and the public good; the thing hav- terprise; knowing that the same treaties have ing been consulted upon by uq. it has been been attempted with heretics and other princes agreed that we ought to publish this present, our enemies: considering all that we have just letter," &c. said, and to fulfill the obligation which we are Years passed away; the hatred between the under of preserving and maintaining the holy two nations still endured; in spite of the nu- Roman Catholic faith in our kingdoms, as well merous checks which the Mahometan race had as the security, peace, and repose of the said received, the Christians were not satisfied. It kingdoms, with the counsel and advice of was very probable that a nation who had suf- learned men, and others, very zealous for the fered, and might still suffer, such great humi- service of God and for our own, we ordain liations, would attempt to avenge them. It is that all the Moriscoes, inhabitants of these also by no means difficult to believe in the rea- kingdoms, men, women, and children, of all lity of the conspiracies which were charged conditions," &c. against the Moors. However this may be, the I have said that the Popes labored, from tho report of these conspiracies was general, and commencement, to soften the rigors of the thegovernment was seriously alarmed by them. Spanish Inquisition, sometimes by admonishThose who desire a proof of this, may read ing the kings and inquisitors, sometimes by what Philip III. said, in 1609, in the law which giving the accused and condemned a right of expelled the Moriscoes. appeal. The kings feared that the religious "Book viii. chap. 2, of the new Recopila- innovations would produce a public disturcioa,. bance; I add, that their policy embarrassed "Law xxv. By virtue of which the Moris- the Popes, and prevented them from carrying coes were banished from the kingdom: causes as far as they would have wished their measures of this expulsion-means which were adopted of mildness and indulgence. Among the other for the execution of the measure. documents which support this assertion, I will "D. Philip III., Madrid, 9 December, 1609. cite one which proves the irritation, of the "For a long time it has been endeavored to Spanish kings at the assistance which the acsave the Moriscoes in these kingdoms: the cused found at Rome. holy office of the Inquisition has inflicted "Book viii. chap. 3, law 2, of the new Redivers punishments; numerous edicts of mercy copilacion, enjoining persons condemned by have been granted; neither means nor dili- the Inquisition, and absent from these kinggence have been spared to instruct them in doms, not to return there under pain of death our holy faith, without being able to obtain the and losing their goods. desired result, for none of them have been "D. Ferdinand and D. Isabella, at Saraconverted. On the contrary, their obstinacy gossa, 2d August, 1498. Pragmatic Sanction. has increased; the peril which threatens our "Some persons condemned as heretics by the kingdoms, if we keep the Moriscoes, has been Inquisition have absented themselves from our represented to us by persons very well informed kingdoms, and have gone to other countries, and full of the fear of God, who, thinking it where, by means of false reports and undue proper that a prompt remedy should be applied formalities, they have surreptitiously obtained to this evil, have represented to us that the exemptions, absolutions, mandates, securities, delay might be charged upon our royal con- and other privileges, in order to be exempt science, considering the grave offences which from the condemnations and punishments our Lord receives from that people. We have which they had incurred, and to remain in been assured that we might, without scruple, their errors, which, nevertheless, does not prepunish them in their lives and properties, since vent their attempting to return to these kingthey were convicted by their continued offences doms, wherefore, wishing to extirpate so great of being heretics, apostates, and traitors of an evil, we command these condemned persons le'se-majest divine and human. Although it not to be so bold as to return. Let them not would have been allowable to. proceed against return into our kingdoms and lordships, by any them with the rigor which their offences de- way, in any manner, for any cause or reason serve, nevertheless, desiring to bring them whatsoever, under pain of death and the loss back by means of mildness and mercy, I or- of their goods; which punishment we will and dained, in the city and kingdom of Valencia, ordain to be incurred by the act itself. Onean assembly of the patriarchs, and other pre- third of the property shall be for the persons lates and wise men, in order to ascertain what who shall have denounced, another for the could be resolved upon and settled; but having courts, and the third for our exchequer. Whenlearned that, at the very time they were en- ever the said justices, in their own places and gaged in remedying the evil, the Moriscoes of jurisdiction, shall know that any of the said the said kingdom of Valencia, and of our other persons are in any part of their jurisdiction, domains, continued to urge forward their per- we order all and each of them, without excepnicious projects; knowing, moreover, from cor- tion, to go to the place where such persons are, rect and certain intelligence, that they had without being otherwise called upon, to appresent to treat at Constantinople with the Turks, hend them forcibly and immediately, and withand at Morocco with the king, Muley Fidon, out delay to execute, and cause to be executed, in order that there might be sent into the on them and their properties the punishments kingdom of Spain the greatest number of which we have appointed; and this notwithforces possible to aid and assist them; being standing all exemption, reconciliation, securisure that there would be found in our kingdom ties, and other privileges which they may have, wore than 150,000 men, as good Moors as those these privileges, in the present case, and with from the coasts of Barbary, all ready to assist respect to the said penalties, not availing them. NOTES. 455 We order them to do and accomplish this un- nor perverse views, have any part. How can der pain of the loss and confiscation of all we doubt the good faith, the love of truth, the their property. The same penalty shall be in- impartiality of the man who begins by excuseurred by all other persons who shall have ing what, according to all appearances, and hidden or received the said condemned persons, considering his opinions, ought to be the object and who knowing that they-were so, shall not of his anathemas? Such is the situation of have given information to our courts. We the men of whom we speak. They intended order all great men and councillors, and other to attack the Inquisition; now it happened that persons of our kingdoms, to give favor and the protectress, and, in some sort, the foundassistance to our courts, whenever it shall be ress of that tribunal was Queen Isabella,-that demanded and required from them, to accom- distinguished name which Spaniards have plish and execute what has been said above, always pronounced with respect, that immorunder the penalties which the courts them- tal queen, one of the noblest ornaments of our selves shall appoint on this subject." history. What was to be done in this difficulWe see from this document, that, after the ty? The means were simple. Although the year 1498, things had reached such a point, Jews and heretics had been treated with the that the kings attempted to maintain against greatest severity in the time of the Catholic every one all the rigor of the Inquisition, and sovereigns, and although they had carried that they were offended that the Popes inter- severity further than all those who have suefered to soften it. It will be understood there- ceeded them, it was necessary to close the eye by whence proceeded the harshness with which to these facts, to excuse the conduct of these'he guilty were treated; and this shows us one sovereigns, and to point out the important matof the causes which made the Inquisition ters which urged them to employ the rigors sometimes use its power with excessive sever- of justice. They thus avoided the difficulty, ity. Although it was not a mere instrument -for it was one to cast a stigma on the memoof the policy of kings, as some have said, the ry of a great queen cherished and respected Inquisition felt more or less the influence of by all Spaniards,-and they thus prepared the Jthat policy; and we know that policy, when way for merciless accusations against Philip about to defeat an adversary, does not com- II. That munarch had the unanimous cry of monly display an excess of compassion. If all Protestants against him, for the simple,he Spanish Inquisition had been at that time reason that he had been their most powerful under the exclusive authority and direction of adversary; it would therefore cost nothing to the Popes, it would have been infinitely milder make all the weight of execration fall upon and more moderate in its method of acting. him. The enigma is thus explained. Such is At that time the object ardently desired by the cause of a partiality so unjust,-such is the kings of Spain was, to obtain that the the hypocrisy of that opinion which, while exjudgments of the Inquisition should be defini- eusing the Catholic sovereigns, condemns Phitive in Spain, without appeal to Rome; Queen lip II. without appeal. Isabella had expressly demanded this of the I have not attempted to justify the policy Pope. The Sovereign Pontiffs woild not ac- of this monarch in all respects; but I have cede to these solicitations, no doubt fearing the presented a few considerations which may abuse which might be made of so fearful an serve to mitigate the violent attacks made arm when the restraint of the moderating upon him by his adversaries: it only remains power should become wantirg. for me to transcribe here the documents to It will be understood from the facts which I which I alluded when I said that the Inquisihave just quoted, how much reason I had to tion was not a mere instrument of the policy say that, if you excuse the conduct of Ferdi- of Philip II., and that this prince did not innand and Isabella with respect to the Inquisi- tend to establish a system of obscurantisme in tion, you must not condemn that of Philip II., Spain. since the Catholic sovereigns showed them- Don Antonio Perez, in his Relations, gives a selves still more harsh and severe than the letter of the confessor of the king, Fray Diego latter monarch. I have already pointed out de Chaves, in which letter the latter affirms the reason why the conduct of Philip II. has that the secular prince has power over the lives been so rigorously condemned; but it is also of his subjects and vassals, and adds in a note: necessary to show why there has been a sort "I shall not undertake to relate all that I have of obstinacy in excusing that of ]kerdinand heard said on the subject of the condemnation and Isabella. of some of these propositions; this is not within When it is wished to falsify an historical my province. Those who are concerned in this fact by calumniating a person or an institution, will at once understand the import of my words. it is necessary to begin with an affectation of I shall content myself with saying that, at the impartiality and good faith; great success is time when I was at Madrid, the Inquisition conobtained in this by manifesting indulgence for demned the following proposition: a preacher the same thing which it is desired to condemn, -it matters not that I should mention his but taking care that this indulgence has strong- name-maintained in a sermon, at St. Jerome's ly the appearance of being a concession gratu- in Madrid, in presence of the Catholid king, itously made to our adversaries, or of a sacri- that kings have an absolute powcer over the per fice of our opinions, of our feelings, on the sons of their subjects, as well as over their proaltars of reason and justice, which are our perties. Besides some other separate matters, guide and our idol. We thus predispose our the preacher was condemned to retract this hearers or readers to regard. the condemnation publicly, in the same place, with all the cervwhich we are about to pronounce as a judg- monies of a juridical act, which he did in the ment dictated by the strictest justice; a judg- same pulpit, saying that he had advanced such ment in which neither passion, nor partiality, a proposition on such a day, and that he re 456 NOTES. tracted it as erroneous' For, messieurs,' said principal author~ of obscurantisme,-cbi4se he, reading literally from a paper,' kings have works, both printed and MS., were sought in no other power over their subjects than what is foreign countries, in order to enrich the Spangiven them by the divine and h2r;zan law; they ish libraries; in our age, which we call that have none proceeding front their own free and of enlightenment, the libraries of Spain have absolute will.' I even know who condemned been plundered, and their treasures have. gone the proposition, and appointed the words which to add to those of foreigners. Who is ignorant the accused, to the great gratification of the of the collections which have been made of former, was obliged to pronounce; indeed, he our books and MS., in England? Consult the rejoiced to see torn up so poisonous a weed, catalogues of the British Museum and other which he felt was increasing, as the event private libraries. The author of these lines proved. Master Fray Hernando del Castillo states only what he has seen with his own eyes (I will mention his name) was the one who -what he has heard lamented by persons prescrilced what the accused was to say; he worthy of respect. While we show so much was consultee of the holy office, and preacher negligence in preserving our treasures, let us to the king; he was a man of singular learning not be so unjust and so puerile as to lose our and eloquence, very well known and esteemed time in vain declamation against those who by his own nation, and especially by the Ita- have bequeathed them to us. lians. Dr. Velasco, an important personage of that time, said of him, that the guitar in the APPENDIX. hands of Fabricio Dentici was not so sweet as the tongue of Master Fray Hernandez del Cas- fet words on Plblanch, Villeneuve, and tillo to the ears of those who heard him." Andoete at page 47 in the text: "I know," says Don Here, in the Spanish edition, the notes reAntonio Perez, " that they were denominated lating to the Inquisition terminate; but I think very scandalous by persons very important by it may not be useless in the French edition to their rank, their learning, and their Christian add a few words, to explain the matter to my purity of heart; there was one among them foreign readers: little versed as they are in who had held supreme rank in the spiritual the knowledge of our affairs, they might often order in Spain, and had previously filled an happen to drink at corrupted sources, which offi6e in the tribunal of the Inquisition." Perez they imagine to be pure and salutary. Le afterwards says, that this person was the nun- Compte de Malstre, with respect to the Spancio of his Holiness. (Relaciones de Anton. Perez. ish Inquisition, cites L' inquisition devoilee de Paris, 1624.)'Natanael Jomtob: I will say a few words, lest The letter of Philip II. to Doctor D. Benito the authority of the author who quotes should Arias Montano contains the following, in ad- give too much importance to him who is quoted. dition to the remarkable passage which we have This Natanael Jomtob is no other than Dr. D. quoted. Antonio Puigrblanch, a Spaniard, who died not " Concerning what you, Dr. &c., my chaplain, long ago in London. This author, in the prowill have to do at Antwerp, whither we send logue to his works published in London, himself you. Dated at Madrid, 25th March, 1568. explains the reason which made him adopt a Besides that you will render this good office strange name. " These Hebrew words," he says, and service to the said Plantinus, know that, "are two proper significative names, which, from this time, in proportion as the six thousand together, form the inscription, Dedit Deus diem crowns are recovered from his hands, I apply bonumn. I wished thus to express the happiness them to buy books for the monastery of St. of being able to speak and write freely against Laurent-le-Royal, of the order of St. Jerome, the tribunal of the Inquisition, and the happi-,which I am building near the Escurial, as you ness of seeing it abolished." (Prolog. p. cxv.) know. Thus you are admonished that such is In order that the reader may judge of the my intention; you will comply with this, and value that belongs to this work, I will observe, will be diligent in collecting all the choice that the first qualification in an historian, esbooks, printed and MS., that your excellent pecially on a matter so delicate, is complete discernment shall think proper, in order to bring impartiality united to a great fund of moderathem and place them in the library of the said tion: these two qualifications were wanting in monastery. Indeed, it is one of the chief pos- M. Puigblanch, who was lamentably infected sessions which I would wish to leave to the with the contrary faults. It is impossible to religious who are intended to dwell there, for be more violent than he is against all that he it is the most useful and necessary. Wherefore meets with; his ill-humor and anger blind I have also commanded my ambassador in him; he attacks institutions and men with perFrance, D. Francis de Alaba, to collect the best feet fury; he respects nothing: add to this a books which he shall be able in that kingdom: pitiable vanity. It would be easy for me to you will communicate with him on that subject. produce here various proofs of the impiety of I will direct him to communicate in writing Puigblanch; but I should fear to soil my paalso with you, to send you a list of the books per by transcribing the impious satires of this which are to be had, as well as their price, be- man. This is enough to give an idea of the fore buying them; you will advise him as to point of view in which he could regard things which he had better take or leave, and what relating to religious affairs and to the clergy. he may give for such. He will send to you at He misses no opportunity of ridiculing the Antwerp those which he has thus bought; you ministers of religion, of indulging in invectives will acknowledge them, and forward them here, against them, and of giving vent to the inall at once, at the proper time." comprehensible rage which he has against During the reign of Philip II.,-of that them. The unbecoming manner in which he princ; who is represefited to us as one of the treats his adversaries, real or imaginary, even NOTES. 457 when they have more or less sympathy with had not candidly told us, that they went so far his opinions, is a good apology for the things as to call him the father of the poor, that his which he combats on the other hand. I cannot poetic fire was not cooled by age, that his repeat his words here, so coarse are they; be- activity in labor did not allow him to remain sides, they attack persons who are still living; idle, even in the midst of the greatest persesuffice it to say, that not content with insulting cutions; in fine, if he had not undertaken to them in the most disgusting way, Puigblanch make us believe that all his life was a condescends so low as to reproach them with their tinual sacrifice on the altars of knowledge and physical defects, after the manner of a market- virtue. To those who desire to derive their woman. What was to be hoped from such a, information from Villanueva, we have a right mind in a matter so important and delicate? to say: Do not forget that you must beware Were such dispositions suitable for an historian of believing all-that the tree is known by its of the Inquisition, who published his work fruits-that the wolf often assumes sheep's precisely in the year 1811, that is to say, at a clothing. time of reaction and effervescence? With re.. Among those who have made the most noise spect to talent and knowledge, I will not refuse with respect to the Inquisition, is Llorente, the to M. Puigblanch either reading or erudition, author of a history of that famous institution. or a certain aptitude for criticism, yet it must The impartiality which may be expected from not be forgotten that his mind was far from this writer shows itself every moment in his being so cultivated as it ought to have been, book, which has evidently been written for the in order to keep pace with our age. A work purpose. of blackening, as much as possible, like his required that he should have followed the Catholic clergy and the Holy See. Hapthe march of the times, that he should not have pily the author has made himself too well been altogether devoid of the philosophy of known by his other works, for any Catholic to history, that he should not have relied exclu- allow himself to be deceived by his insidious sively upon certain books, while accumulating writings. No one, especially in Spain, is ignocrude erudition, and incessantly perusing ety- rant of the project of the religious constitution mologies and grammatical questions: this is with which Llorente attempted to disturb conwhat was wanting in M. Puigblanch. To sum sciences, and introduce schism and heresy into up all in one sentence, I have found the fol- our country. Does he who attempts to destroy lowing description, which I heard in London, the universal discipline established from the from the mouth of a distinguished man who earliest ages, who expresses doubts on the most had intercourse with Puigblanch for a long sacred mysteries of our holy religion, who contime, to be perfectly correct: "Puigblanch," tests the infallible authority of the Church, he told me, " knew what a learned man of the and does not hold the first four (Ecumenical seventeenth century in Spain might have Councils to be legitimate,,. deserve the least known." The Christian reader may imagine credit when writing the history of the Inquiwhat was the result of the amalgamation of sition,-that history which affords so many opthis kind of instruction with all the bile of portunities of declaiming against the clergy Voltairian passion. and against Rome? Here is a proof of his D. Joaquin Lorenio Villanueva is another of impartiality. In his history of the Inquisithose Spaniards who have distinguished them- tion, he could not avoid relating the conduct selves by declaiming against the Inquisition; of the Apostolic See in the early times of the in his Literary Life (Vida Literaria) he had Inquisition in Spain, and the efforts made by asserted that the public information on this the Holy See for the purpose of softening the question, and the abolition of that famous tri- rigors of that tribunal, the appeals which were bunal, were in great part owing to him. Puig- made, and the merciful judgments which were blanch strongly recriminates against Villanu- almost always obtained at Rome; all these facts eva, who attempted to usurp his glory by clearly showed that Rome, far from being, as availing himself of his work without acknow- he pretended, a monster of cruelty, was rather ledging it, and other similar things, which do a model of mildness and prudence. How do as little honor to the one as to the other. Vil- you think he gets out of this difficulty? By lanueva has been already judged in Spain by saying, that what the Court of Rome wanted all sensible men; foreigners who desire to un- was, to extortmoney from us. An explanation derstand this question will be under the un- as unworthy as it is impudent-an odious means pleasant obligation of reading the two large of depriving the most beneficent and generous volumes in 8vo, in which he has written his actions of their lustre, and which shows a fixed literary life. The bile of Villanueva against design to find evil every where, even to the exall the clergy who are not of his coterie, and, tent of assigning evil motives for benefits which above all, his hatred against Rome, show them- are the most worthy of gratitude. selves at every page of his book, and from With respect to Llorente, I am unwilling to time to time produce explosions which are pass over in silence a remarkable fact which much too violent to accord with the extreme he has had the kindness to communicate to the mildness which he is pleased to affect. More- public in the same work. King Joseph, the over, let the reader prepare and arm himself intruder, intrusted Llorente, by express orders, with patience, if he undertake to get through with the archives of the Supreme Council and these two large volumes, which contain, writ- the Tribunal of the Inquisition of the capital. ten by the man himself, who so well deserved This excellent man was so perfect an archivist, it, the most complete panegyric of his pro- that he burnt all the reports of proceedings, found knowledge, his vast erudition, his great with the approbation of his master (as he him. humility, and his virtues.of all kinds. It cer- self tells us), with the exception of those tainly would have been very well, if the which could appertain to history, by the celeauthor, with a slight recollection of modesty, brity or the renown of the persons who figured 58 20 458 NOTES. in them, such as those of Caranza, of Maca- to descend to extremely interesting partiennaz, and a few others; although he preserved lars, which will be like the episodes of a grand entire, he adds, the registers of the decisions and unique poem. The disposition of men's of the Council, the royal ordinances, and the minds, now become favorable to religious in.. bulls and briefs from Rome. (Edition Fran- stitutions, thanks to the deceptions which are raise, 1818, t. 4, p. 145.) After having heard the consequence of vain theories, and to the this remarkable confession, we will ask every lessons of experience, which destroy the calumimpartial man, whether there is not room for nies invented by philosophy, render the road greatly mistrusting an historian who claims to every day more easy. The path is already be sole and unique, because he has had the op- sufficiently beaten; it is only required to cnportunity of consulting the original documents large and extend it, in order to conduct a whereon he founds his history, and who, never- greater number of men towards the region of theless, burns and destroys these same docu- truth. ments? Was there no place to be found in Having pointed out this, it only remains for Madrid to place them, where they could be ex- me to state here, in conclusion, divers facts amined by those who, after Llorente, might which could not be given in the text, and which wish to write the history of the Inquisition I have preferred to collect in a note: As these from the original documents? Llorente has facts belonged to the same subject, it appeared preserved, he tells us, those which belonged to to me proper to collect them apart, while leavhistory; but the history of the Inquisition had ing the reader to pay full attention to the obequally need of others, even the most obscure servations which form the body of my work. -even the most apparently insignificant; for There were known among the pagans, under it not seldom happens that a fact, a circum- the name of ascetics, persons who devoted stance, a word, shows us an institution, and themselves to abstinence and -the practice of paints for us an age. And observe, that this the austere virtues; so that, even before Chfisdestruction took place at a critical moment of tianity, there already existed the idea of those public disturbance, when the whole nation, de- virtues which have been since exercised in voted to an immortal struggle in defence of her Christianity. The lives of the philosophers independence, could not fix her attention on are full of examples which prove the truth of such matters. The most remarkable men, my assertion. Yet it will be understood that, scattered on all sides, then led their fellow-ci- deprived of the light of faith and the aid of tizens in arms, or were engaged in the most grace, the pagan philosophers afforded but a important interests of the country; conse- very faint shadow of what was afterwards reaquently they could not watch over the conduct lized in the lives of the Christian ascetics. We of an archivist, who, after having left his bre- have stated that the monastic life is founded thren, whose blood was flowing upon the battle- on the Gospel, inasmuch as the Gospel contains field, accepted employment under a foreign in- asceticism. From the foundation of the Church trader, and burned the documents of an insti- we see the monastic life established under one tution whereof he undertook to write the form or another. Origen tells us of certain history. men, who, in order to reduce their bodies into subjection, abstained from eating meat and NOTE 27, p. 281. from all that had life. (Origen, Contr. Celsun, lib. v.) Tertullian makes mention of some The plan of my work required that questions Christians who abstained from marriage, not relating to the religious communities should be because they condemned it, but in order to examined at some length but it did not allow gain the kingdom of heaven. (Tertul. De me to give to this matter all the development Cult.'ermin. lib. ii.) of which it is susceptible. Indeed, it would It is remarkable, that the weaker sex partibe possible, in my opinion, in writing the cipated in a singular manner in that strength history of religious comm'unities, to give side of mind which Christianity communicated for by side that of the nations among whom these the exercise of the heroic virtues. In the communities arose, so as to show in detail a early ages of the Church there were already truth we have now proved, viz. that the esta- reckoned, in great numbers, virgins and wicblishment of religious institutions, besides the ows consecrated to the Lord, bound by a vow superior and divine object which they have of perpetual chastity; and we see that special had in view, has been at all times the fulfil- care was taken in the ancient Councils of the ment of a social and religious necessity. Al- Church of that chosen portion of her flock. It though my strength does not enable me to as- is one of the objects of the solicitude of the pire to such an enterprise, by which the cou- Fathers to regulate discipline on this point in rage may well be daunted, even by contem- a proper manner. The virgins made their pubplating the immense extent of such a work, I lie profession in the church; they received wish to suggest the idea of it here; perhaps a the veil from the hands of the bishop, and, for man may be found with sufficient capacity, greater solemnity, they were distinguished by learning, and leisure, to undertake it, and en- a kind of consecration. This ceremony rerich our age with this new monument of history quired a certain age in the person who was and philosophy. By conceiving the plan in consecrated to God; we also observe that disthis point of view, and making it subordinate cipline has been very different on this point. to this unity of object, whereof the foundation, In the East they received persons seventeen which shows itself in well-known facts, is dis- years old, and even sixteen, as we learn from covered in obscure and conjectured in hidden St. Basil (Lpist. can. 18); in Africa at twentyones, there would be no difficulty in giving all five, as we see from the fourth canon of the desirable variety to this work. The subject third Council of Carthage; in France at forty, itself lea;lds to variety; for it invites the writer as appears from the nineteenth canon of the NOTES. 459 Council of Agde. Even when the virgins and cesses into which some individuals of the menwidows dwelt in the'houses of their fathers, dicant orders fell; and they borrow the narrathey did not cease to be reckoned among ec- tives of Matthew Paris, without forgetting the clesiastical persons; they received the support lamentations of St. Bonaventura himself. I of the Church by this title, in cases of neces- wish not to excuse evil, wherever it is found; sity. If they violated their vow of chastity, but I will observe, that the circumstances of they were excommunicated, and could not re- the times when the mendicant orders were turn to the communion of the faithful, except established, and the kind of life they were obhv submitting to public penance. (For these liged to embrace, in order to fulfill the purpose det-iis, see the thirty-third canon of the third for which they were intended, as I have pointCouncil of Carthage, the nineteenth canon of ed out in the text, rendered almost inevitable'the Council of Ancyra, and the sixteenth those evils which pious men sincerely deplored, canon of that of Chalcedon.) and which the enemies of the Church lament In the first three centuries, the state of the with no less affectation than exaggeration. Church, subject to an almost continual persecution, must naturally have hindered persons NOTE 28, p. 305. who loved the ascetic life, men or women, from I have already shown, by numerous testimoassembling in the towns to observe it in com- nies of scholastic theologians, how the divine mon. Some think that the propagation of the origin of the civil power is to be understood; ascetic life in the desert is in great part due to and it is evident that it contains nothing but the persecution of Decius, which was very what is perfectly conformable to sound reason, cruel in Egypt, and made a great number of and adapted, at the same time, to the high Christians retire into the deserts of the The- aims of society. It would have been easy for bais, or other solitudes in the neighbourhood. me to accumulate testimonies; but I think I Thus commenced the establishment of that have adduced a sufficient number to throw light method of life which, in the end, was to gain on the subject, and to satisfy every reader who, so prodigious an extension. St. Paul, if we are free from unjust prejudices, is sincerely desirous to believe St. Jerome, was the founder of the of listening to truth. In order, however, to solitary life. view this subject under every aspect, I will add It appears that some abuses were introduced a few explanations on that celebrated passage into the monhXtic life from the earliest ages, as of St. Paul to the Romans, chap. xiii., in which we see certain monks detested at Rome in the the Apostle speaks of the origin of powers, and time of Jerome. Quousque genus detestabile of the submission and obedience due to them. monacorum urbe non pellitur, says the saint by Let it not be thought, however, that I purpose the mouth of the Romans in a letter to Paula; attaining this end by any reasoning more or but the reputation of the monks, which had less specious. Whenever a passage of Scripperhaps been compromised by the Sarabaites ture is to be expounded in its true sense, we and the Gyrovagues, a kind of vagabonds should not rely principally upon what our whose last care was the practice of the virtues wavering reason suggests to us, but rather of their state, and who indulged in gluttony upon the interpretation of the Catholic Church; and other pleasures with shameful licentious- for this reason we should consult those writers ness, was soon restored. St. Athanasius, St. whose high authority, founded on their wisdom Jerome himself, St. Martin, and other ce- and their virtue, leads us to hope that they lebrated men, among whom St. Bennet distin- have not deviated from the maxim, Quod semguished himself in a particular manner, renewed per, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus traditum est. the splendor of the monastic life by the most We have already seen a remarkable passage eloquent apology, that which consisted in giv- of St. John Chrysostom, explaining this point. ing, as they did, the most sublime example with as much clearness as solidity; we have of the most austere virtues. also learned, from the testimony of the Fathers, It is remarkable that, in spite of the multi- what motives induced the Apostles to inculcate plication of monks in the east and west, they so pressingly the obligation of obedience to the were not divided into different orders, so that, lawful authorities. It only remains for us to during the first six centuries, all, as Mabillon insert here the commentaries of some illustrious observes, were considered as forming one insti- writers on the text of the Apostle. In them tute. There was something noble in this unity, we shall find, as it were, a code of doctrine; which, as it were, formed all the monasteries and when we come to appreciate the reasons into one family; but it must be acknowledged on which the precepts inculcated in the sacred that the' diversity of orders afterwards intro- text are founded, we shall more easily discover duced was essentially calculated to attain the their true meaning. various and numerous objects which succes- Observe, in the first place, with what wisdom, sively attracted the attention of religious insti- prudence, and piety this important subject is tutions. expounded by a writer who was not of the The discipline, by virtue whereof no new golden era, but, on the contrary, who lived in order could be instituted without the previous what is generally termed the barbarous ageapprobation of the sovereign Pontiff, it may be St. Anselm. In his commentaries on the 13th said, was very necessary, considering the ar- chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, this docdor which afterwards urged many persons to tor thus expresses himself: establish new institutions; so that, without this " Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribls subprudent check, disorder would have been in- dita sit. Non est enim potestas nisi a Deo. troduced in consequence of the exaggerated Quce aten slunt, a Deo ordinatce sunt. Itaque transports which urged some imaginations to qui resistit potestati, Dei ordinationi resistit. exceed all bounds. Qui autern resistunt, ipsi sibi damnationem rt.. Some people take delight in relating the ex- quirunt. 40O NOTES. Sicut superius reprehendit illos, qui gloria- nisi a Deo. Numquam enim posset fieri nise bantur de meritis, ita nune ingreditur illos red- operatione solius Dei, ut tot homines uni serarguere, qui postquam erant ad fidein conversi virent, quem considerant unius secum esse franolebant subjici alicui potestati. Videbatur gilitatis et naturae. Sed quia Deus subditis enim quod infideles, Dei fidelibus non deberent inspirat timorein et obediendi voluntatem, condominari, etsi fideles deberent esse pares. tigit ita. Nec valet quisquam aliquid posse, ni8i Quam superbiam removet, dicens: Orciis ani- divinitus ei datum fuerit. Potestas omnis est a mna, id est, omnis homo, sit humiliter subdita Deo. Sed ea quce 8unt, a Deo ordinatce s8nt. potestatibus vel secularibus, vel ecclesiasticis, Ergo potestas est ordinata, id est, rationabilisublimioribus se: hoc est, omnis homo sit sub- ter a Deo disposita. Itaque qui resistit potesjeotus superpositis sibi potestatibus. A parte tati, nolens tributa dare, honorem deferre, et enim majore significat totum hominem, sicut his simrilia, Dei ordinationi resistit, qui hoc orrursum a parte inferiore totus homo significa- dinavit, ut talibus subjiciamur. Hoc enim contur ubi Propheta dicit: Quia videbit ontnis caro tra illos dicitur, qui Ne putabant ita debere ilti salutare Dei. Et recte admonet, ne quis ex eo libertate Christiana, ut nulli vel honorem dequod in libertatem vocatus est, factusque Chris- ferrent, vel tributa rcdderent. Unde magnum tianus, extollatur in superbiam, et non arbi- poterat adversus CGhistiananm religionem 8cantretur in hujus vitae itinere servandum esse or- dalull nasci a principibus seculi. De bona podinem suum, etpotestatibus, quibus pro tempore testate patet, quod eam perfecit Deus rationarerum temporalium gubernatio tradita est, non biliter. De mala quoque videri potest, dum et se putet esse subdendum. Cum enim conste- boni per ear purgantur, et mali damnantur, et mus ex anima et corpore, et quamdiu in hac ipsa deterius praecipitatur. Qui potestati revita temporali sumus, etiam rebus temporalibus sistit, cum Deus earn ordinaverit, Dei ordinaad subsidium ejusdem vitae utamur, oportet nos tioni resistit. Sed h6c tam grave peccatum est, ex ea parte, quae ad hanc vitam pertinct, sub- quod qui resistunt, ipsi pro contumacia et ditos esse potestatibus, id est, res humanas cum perversitate sibi dathnlationen seternae mortis aliquo honore adminlstrantibus: ex ilia vero acquirunt. Et ideo non debet quis resistere, parte, qua Deo credimus, et in regnum ejus vo- sed subjici." camur, non debemus subditi esse cuiquam ho- This remarkable passage contains all-the mini, id ipsum in nobis evertere cupienti, quod origin of power, its object, its duties, and its Deus ad vitam seternam donare dignatus est. limits. We must observe, that St. Anselm exSi quis ergo putat quoniam Christianus est, non pressly confirms what I have hinted in the text sibi esse vectigal reddendum, sive tributum, on the subject of the wrong meaning someaut non esse honorem exhibendum debitum eis times given in the first centuries to Christian quae haec curant potestatibls, in magno errore liberty; many imagining that this liberty carversatur. Item si quis sic se putat esse sub-' rid with it the abolition of the civil powers, dendum, ut etiam in suam fidem habere potes- and particularly of those which were infidel. tatem arbitretur eurn, qui temporalibus ad- He also shows the scandal which this doctrine ministrandis aliqua sublimitate praecellit, in might cause; thus explaining how the Aposmajorem errorem labitur. Sed modus iste ser- ties, without attempting to attribute to the civil vandus est, quem Dominus ipse praecipit, ut power any extraordinary and supernatural orireddamus Cceaari quce sult Cesaris, et Deo qlca gin, like that of the ecclesiastical power, had sunt Dei. Quamvis enim ad illud regnum vo-'nevertheless powerful reasons for inculcating cati simus, ubi nulla erit potestas hujusmodi, that this power emanates from God, and that in hoc tamen itinere conditionem nostram pro whoever resists it, resists the ordinance of God. ipso rerum humnanarum ordine debemus tole- Passing on to centuries nearer our own time, rare, nihil simulate facientes, et in hoc non tam we find the same doctrines in the most eminent hominibus, quam Deo, qui hoc jubet, obtempe- commentators. Cornelius a Lapide interprets rantes. Itaque onlis anioma sit subdita subli- the passage of St. Paul in the same way as St. mtioribus potestatibus, id est, omnis homo sit Anselm, and explains, by the same reasons, the subditus primum divinae potestati, deinde mun- solicitude with which the Apostles recommenddanae. Nam si mundana potestas jusseritquod ed obedience to the civil powers. These are non debes facere, contemne potestatem, timen, his words: do sublimiorem potestatem. Ipsos humanarum " Omnzis anima (omnis homo) potestatibus rerum gradus adverte. Si aliquid juisserit pro- sublimioribus, id est principibus et magistratiourator, nonne faciendum est? Tamen si con- bus, qui potestate regendi et imperandi sunt tra proconsulem jubeat, non utique contemnis praediti; ponitur enim abstractum pro concrepotestatem, sed eligis majore servire. Non to; potestatibus, hoc est potestate praeditis, hinc debet minor irasci, si major praelata est. subdita sit, scilicet iis in rebus, in quibus potesRursus si aliquid proconsul jubeat, et aliud im- tas illa sublimior et superior est, habetque jus perator, numquid dubitatur, illo contempto et jurisdictionem, puta in temporalibus, subhuic esse serviendum. Ergo si aliud impera- dita sit regi et potestati civili, quod propie hie tor, et aliud Deus jubeat, quid faciemus? Num- intendit Apostolus; per potestatem enim, civiquid non Deus imperatori est prsaferendus? Ita lem intelligit; in spiritualibus vero subdita sit ergo sablinOioribus potestatibus anima subjicia- Praelatis, Episcopis et Pontifici. tur, id est, homo. Sive ideirco ponitur anliaa "Nota.-Pro potestatibus sublinmioribua, popro homine, qui sccundum hanc discernit, cui testatibus supereminentibus vel precellentibus, subdi debeat, et cui non. Vel homo, qui pro- ut, Noster vertit, 1 Pet. ii., sive regi quasi prcemaotione virtutem sublimatus est, anima voca- cellenti, Syrus vertit, potestatibus dignitate prcetar a digniore parte. Vel, non solum corpus ditis: id est magistratibus secularibus, qui pofit subditum, sed anima, id est, voluntas: hoc testate regendi praediti sunt, sive duces, sive a.lt, non solum corpore, sed et voluntate servia- gubernatores, sive consules, praetores, &c. ti~. Ideo debetis subjici, quia non est potestas Seculares enim magistratus hic intelligero NOTES. 461 Apostolum patet, quia his solvuntur tributa et on the subject of civil power, and how calumvectigalia quae hisce potestatibus solvi jubet niously they have been accused of being the ipse v. 7, ita Sandtus Basilius de Constit. Mo- disturbers of public order. nast. c. 23. " Omnis anima potestatibus, &c. Pergit hie " Nota.-Ex Clemente Alexand. lib. iv. Stro- Apostolus docere Fideles vitse ac morum officia. maturm, et S. Aug. in Psal. cxviii. cont. 31, Quse superiori capite vidimus, eo desinunt, ut Initio Ecelesice, puta tempore Christi et Pauli, bonus ordo et pax in Ecclesia interque Fideles rumor erat, per Evangelium politias humanas, servetur. Haec potissimum spectant ad obediregna et reepublicas seculares everti; uti jam entiam, quam unusquisque superioribus potesfit ab hasreticis prmstendentibus libertatem tatibus debet. Christianorun libertatem atque Evangelii: unde contrarium docent, et studiose a Mosaicis legibus immunitatem commendainculcant Christus, cum solvit didrachma, et verat Apostolus; at ne quis monitis abutatur, cum jussit Csesari reddi ea quee Caesaris sunt; docet hic, qume debeat esse subditorum subet Apostoli: idque ne in odium traheretur jectio erga Reges et Magistratus. Christiana religio, et ne Christiani abuterentur " Hoc ipsum gravissime monuerant primos libertate fidei ad omnem malitiam. Ecclesise discipulos Petrus et Jacobus; repetit" Ortus est hic rumor ex secta Judoe et Gali- que Paulus ad Titum scribens, sive ut Christilacorum de qua Actor. 5, in fine, qui pro liber- anos, insectantium injuriis undique obnoxios, tate sua tuenda omne dominium Cmsaris et vec- in patientia contineret, sive ut vulgi opinionem tigal, etiam morte proposita abnuebant, de quo deleret, qua discipuli Jesu Christi, omnes ferme Josephus, libr. xviii. Antiqu. 1. Quse secta diu Galilcei, sententiam Judce Gaulonitce sequi, et inter Judeos viguit; adeoque Christus et Apos- principum authoritati repugnare censebantur. toll in ejus suspicionem vocati sunt, quia ori- " Omnis anima, quilibet, quavis conditiene gine erant Galilai, et rerum novarum prmecones. aut dignitate, potestatibus sublimioribuls subdita Ios Galilmos secuti sunt Judasi omnes, et de sit; Regibus, Principibus, Magistratibus, iis facto Romanis rebellarunt: quod dicerent po- denique quibus legitima est authoritas, sive pulum Dei liberum non debere subjici et ser- absoluta, sive alteri obnoxia. Neminem excivire infidelibus Romanis; ideoque a Tito excisi pit Apostolus, non Presbyteros, non Praesules, sunt. Hinc etiam eadem calumnia in Christia- non Monachos, ait Theodoretus; illaesa tamen nos, qui origine erant et habebantur Judaei, de- Ecclesiasticorum immunitate. Tune solum rivata est: unde Apostoli, ut eam amoliantur, modo parere non debes, cum aliquid Divinse saepe docent principibus dandum esse honorem Legi contrarium imperatur: tune enim praefcret tributum. enda est debita Deo obedientia; quin tamen " Qiare octo argumentis probat hie Aposto- vel arma capere adversus Principes, vel in selus principibus et magistratibus deberi obedien- ditionem abire liceat. Repugnandum est in tiam.. iis tantum, quse justitiam, ac Dei legem vio"Iis rationibus probat Apostolus Evange- lant; in caeteris parendum. Si imperaverint lium, et Christianismum, regna et magistratus aut idolorum cultum aut justitise violationem non evertere, sed firmare et stabilire: quia nil cum necis vel bonorum jacturae interminaregna et principes ita confirmat, ac subditorum tione, vitam et fortunas discrimini objiclto, ac bona, Christiana et sancta vita. Adeo, ut etiam repugnato; in reliquis autem obtempera. nunc principes Japones et Indi Gentiles ament "Von eat enim potestas nisi a Deo. AbsoChristianos, et suis copiam faciant baptismi et lutissima in libertate conditus est homo, nulli Christianismi suscipiendi, quia subditos Chris- creatae rei, at uni Deo subditus. Nisi muntianos, magis quam Ethnicos, faciles et obse- dum invasisset una cum Adami transgressione quentes, regnaque sua per cos magis firmari, peccatum, mutuam sequalitatem libertatemque pacari et florere experiuntur." homines servassent. At libertate abusos damWith regard to the mode in which civil power navit Deus, ut parerent iis, quos ipse principroceeds from God, the celebrated commenta- pes illis daret, ob poenam arrogantiae, qua pares tor agrees with the other theologians. Like Conditori effici voluerunt. At, inquies, quis them, he distinguishes between direct and in- nesciat, quorumdam veterum Imperiorum inidirect communication, and takes care to define tia et incrementa ex injuria atque ambitione the paiticular meaning of the term, divine profecta. Nemrod, exempli causa, Ninus, Naorigin of power, when applied to ecclesiastical buchodonosor, aliique quamplures, an Princiauthority. pes erant a Deo constituti? Nonne similius In his explanation of these words, all power vero est, violenta Imperia primum exorta esse is from God, he thus expresses himself: ab imperandi libidine? liberorum vero Impe" Non est enim potestas, nisi a ]Deo; quasi di- riorum originem fuisse hominum metum, qui ceret principatus et magistratus non a diabolo, sese impares propulsandae externorum injuriva nec a solo homine, sed a Deo ejusque divina sentientes, aliquem sibi Principem creavere, ordinatione et dispositione conditi et instituti datamque sibi a Deo naturalem ulciscendi insunt: eis ergo obediendum est. jurias potestatem, volentes libentesque alteri "Nota primo.-Potestas scecnlaris est a Deo tradiderunt? Quam vere igitur docet Aposnediate; quia natura et recta ratio, quce a Deo tolus, quamlibet potestatem a Deo esse, eumest,'dicat, et hominibus persuasit prceficere que esse positae inter homines authoritatis inreipublicce magistratus, a quibus regantur. stitutorem?" Potestas vero ecclesiastica immediate est a Deo He points out four ways in which power may irstitltta; quia Christus ipse Petrum et Apos- be said to emanate from God, and it is retogos Ecclesic prcefecit." markable that none of them are extraordinary The celebrated Dom Calmet explains the or supernatural; all of them serve to confirm same passage with no less learning; he quotes more and more what reason and the very numerous passages from the holy Fathers, nature of things leach us. showing what ideas the first Christians held "Omnino Deus potestatis autor et causa est. 2 o2 482 NOTES. C. Quod, hominibus tacite inspiraverit con- et sibi victu ferino vitam propagabant; nea silium subjiciendi se uni, a quo defenderentur. ratione animi quidquam, sed pleraque viribus II. Quod imperia inter homines utilissima sint corporis administrabant. Nondum divinae reservandse concordiae, disciplinse, ac ieligioni. ligionis, non humani officii ratio colebatur; Porro quicquid boni est, a Deo ceu fonte pro- nemo nuptias viderat legitimas, non certos ficisciter. III. Cum potestastuendiabaggres- quisquam' inspexerat liberos; non jus aequasore vitam vel opes, hominibus a Deo tradita, bile quid utilitatis haberet, acceperat. Ita atque ab ipsis in Principem conversa, a Deo propter errorem atque inscitiam, cseca ac tenprimum proveniat, Principes ea potestate ab eraria dominatrix animi cupiditas ad se exhominibus donati, hanc ab ipso Deo accepisse plendam viribus corporis abutebatur, perni. jure dicuntur; quamobrem Petrus humanam ciosissimis satellitibus." (De Inv. 1.) creaturam nuncupat, quam Paulus potestatem The same doctrine is to be found in Horace: a Deo institutam: humana igitur et divina est, varia ratione spectata, uti diximus. IV. De- "CCum prorepserunt primis animalia terris, nique suprema authoritas a Deo est, utpote Mutum et turpe pecus, glandem atque cubilia propter quam Deus, a sapientibus institutam, probavit. Unguibus et pugnis, dein fustibus, atque ita porro quam D en,',Pugnabant armis, quze post fabricaverat usus: "Nulla unquam gens ssecularibus potestati- Donec verba, quibus voces sensusque notarent, bus magis paruit, quam primse setatis Christiani, Nominaque invenere: dehinc absistere bello, qui a Christo Jesu et ab Apostolis edocti, nun- Oppida coeperunt munire et ponere leges, quam ausi sunt Principibus a Providentia sibi NNeu quis fur esset, neu latro, neu quis adulter. qur ui utPiniiu aPoieni iiNam fuit ante lelenam muller teterrima belli datis repugnare. Discipulos fugere tanturn datis repugnare. Discipulos fugere tantum Causa: sed ignotis perierunt mortibus illi jubet Christus. Ait Petrus, Christum nobis Quos Venerem incertam rapientes, more ferarum, exemplun reliquisse, cum sese Judicum in- Viribus editior csedebat, ut ingrege taurus. iquitate pessime agi passus est. Monet hie Jurainventa metu injusti fateare necesseest, Paulus, resistere te Dei voluntati, atque aeternmI Tempora si fastosque velis evolvere mu ndi,,Nec naturn potest justo secernere iniquum, damnationis reum effici, si potestati repugnas. Nec natura potet disis, fcgiendpeteindis. Dividit ut bona diversis, fugienda petendis."'Quamvis nimius et copiosus noster populus, Satir. lib. i. sat. 3. non tamen adversus violentiam se ulciscitur: patitur,' ait sanctus Cyprianus.' Satis virium "When men first began to crawl upon the est ad pugnam; at omnia perpeti ex Christo earth, they were only like a herd of brute and didicimus. Cui bello non idonei, non prompti speechless animals, contending with their nails fuissemus, etiam copils impares, qui tam liben- or their fists for a few acorns or for a den. ter trucidrmur? si non apud istam disciplinam They afterwards contended with sticks and magis occili liceret, quam occidere,' inquit such arms as experience taught them to invent. Tertullianus.' Cum nefanda patimur, ne ver- At length they discovered the use of words to bo quidem reluctaiur, sed Deo remittimus ul- express their thoughts; gradually they betionem,' scribebat Lactantius. Sanctus Am- came weary of fighting, and built cities, and brosius:'coactus, repugnare non novi. Dolere made laws to prevent theft, robbery, and adulpotero, potero fiere, potero gemere: abversus tery; for, before Helen, women had been the arma, milites, Gothos quoque; lacrymae meae cause of terrible wars. Ie who was the arma sunt. Talia enim sunt munimenta Sa- strongest, abusing his power, after the manner cerdotis. Aliter ne debeo nee possum resis- of brutes, attacked the weak, like a bull among tere.'" a subject herd; they thus contended for the r have said in the text, that there was to be favors of inconstant Venus; but their end was remarked a singular coincidence of opinions inglorious. If you consult the origin of things, on the origin of society between the philoso- you will acknowledge that laws have been phers of antiquity, deprived of the light of made in apprehension of injustice. Nature faith, and those of our days who have aban- enables us to discern good from evil, what is doned this light; both wanting the only guide, to be sought after from what is to be avoided, which is the Mosaic history, have found in but she is incapable of distinguishing justice their researches after the origin of things, from injustice." nothing more than chaos, in the physical as well as in the moral order. In support of my N assertion, I will insert passages from two celebrated men, in which the reader will find, with Concerning this question, as to the direct or very little difference, the same language as in indirect origin of civil power, it is remarkable, Hobbes, Rousseau, and other writers of the that, in the time of Louis of Bavaria, the imsame school. perial princes solemly sanctioned the opinion "There was a time," says Cicero, "when that power emanates directly from God. In men wandered in the fields like the brutes, an imperial Constitution, published against th feeding on prey like wild beasts, deciding Roman Pontiff, they established the following nothing by reason, but every thing by force. proposition: "In order to avoid so great an No religion was then professed, no morality evil, we declare that imperial dignity and observed; there were no laws of marriage; power proceed directly from God.-Ad tantum the father could not distinguish his own chil- malum evitandum, declaramus, quod imperialis dren, and the possession of property by virtue dignitas et potesras est immediate a Deo solo." of principles of equity was unknown. Hence That we may form an idea of the spirit and the blind, unrestrained passions ruled tyranni- tendency of this doctrine, let us see what kind cally in the midst of error and ignorance, and of man this Louis of Bavaria was. Excomused the powers of the body for their gratifi- municated by John XXII., and at a later cation as their most injurious satellites." period by Clement VI., he went so far as to "Nam fuit quoddam tempus cum in agris depose this latter Pontiff, in order to exalt to homines passim bestiarum more vagabantur, the Pontifical Chair the antipope Peter, fol NOTES. 463 which rea3so the Pope, after repeated admo- This book, printed at Madrid in 1615, fur. nitions, divested him of his imperial dignity, nished with all the privileges, approbations, substituting Charles IV. in his stead. and other formalities in use, must have been Ziegler the Lutheran, a zealous supporter well received at that epoch, since it was reof direct communication, in order to explain printed at Barcelona in 1616, by Sebastian de his doctrine, compares the election of a prince Cormellas. -Who shall say whether this work to that of a minister of the Church. The lat- did not inspire Bossuet with the idea of that ter, says he, does not receive his spiritual intituled Politics derived from the very words authority from the people, but immediately of Scripture? The title is certainly analo. from God. From this explanation it is evident gous, and the idea is in fact the same, although with how much reason I have said, that such differently carried out. "I think," says Brother a doctrine tended to place the temporal and John de Ste.-Marie, "I shall escape all diffispiritual powers on a level, by making it ap- culty, by laying before kings in this work, not pear that the latter could.not claim, by reason my own reasonings, nor those afforded by emiof its origin, any superiority over the former. nent philosophers and the records of profane I do not mean, however, to assert, that this history, but the words of God and His saints, declaration, made in the time of Louis of Ba- and the divine and canonical histories, whose varia, had directly this aim, since it may rather teaching commands respect, and whose anbe regarded as a sort of weapon employed thority cannot be prejudicial to any one, howagainst the pontifical authority, the ascendency ever powerful a sovereign he may be; in fact, of which was dreaded. But it is well known to these a Christian cannot but submit, since that doctrines, besides the influence resulting every thing in them is dictated by the Holy immediately from them, possess a peculiar Ghost, the author of these divine maxims. If force, which continues to develope itself as op- I cite examples of Gentile kings, if.I appeal portunities occur. Some time after, we see to antiquity, and adduce passages from phithe kings of. England defenders of the reli- losophers unconnected with the people of God, gions supremacy which they had just usurped, I shall do so incidentally only, and as we resupporting the proposition advanced in the sume possession of what of right belongs to imperial Constitution. us, and has been unjustly usurped by others." I know not with what foundation it can be (Chap. 2.) said that Ziegler's opinion was general before The work is dedicated to the king. Adthe time of Puffendorf; in consulting ecclesi- dressing him, and praying him to read it, and astical and secular writers, we do not find the not to allow himself to be imposed upon by least support for such an assertion. Let us be those who would dissuade him from its perujust even to our adversaries. Ziegler's opin- sal, the good religious says, with a pleasing ion, defended by Boecler and others, was at- candor, "Let no one tell you that these things tacked by certain Lutherans, amongst others are metaphysical, impracticable, and all but by Boehmer, who observes, that this opinion impossible." is not favorable, as its partisans pretend, to the The following inscription is placed at the security of states and princes. To repeat what head of the 1st chapter: "Ad vos (O Reges) I have already explained in the text, I do not sunt hi sermones mei, ut discatis sapientiam consider that the opinion of direct conmmunica- at non excidatis: qui enim custodierint justa tion, rightly understood, is so inadmissible and juste, justificabuntur: et qui didiscerint ista, dangerous as some have imagined; but as it invenient quid respondeant." (Sap. 6, v. 10.) lay open to an evil interpretation, Catholic In the first chapter, the title of which is, theologians have done well to combat its ten-'A treatise in which the import and definition dency to encroach upon the divine origin of of this word commonwealth are briefly disecclesiastical power. cussed," we read these remarkable words: "So that monarchy must degenerate if it be NOTE 30, P. 317. absolute and without restraint (for power and authority thus become unreasonable); in all I might quote a thousand remarkable pas- things falling under the cognizance of law, it sages showing the reader how unjust it is in should be bound by the law and in special the enemies of the clergy to accuse them of and incidental matters it should be subject to being favorable to despotism. But, to be brief, advice, from the connection which it ought to and to spare him the fatigue of perusing so have with the aristocracy, which is its assistmany texts and quotations, I shall merely pre- ant, and forms a council of learned and powsent to him a specimen of the current opinions erful men. Without this wise modification, on this point in Spain at the beginning of the monarchy will create great errors of govern]7th century, a few years after the death of ment, will give but little satisfaction, but, on Philip. II., the monarch who is represented to the contrary, will cause great discontent among us as the personification of religious fanati- the governed. The wisest and most enlighten. cism and political tyranny. Among the numer- ed men of every age have invariably considerous books published at that time on these ed this form of government the best; and delicate points, there is a very singular one, without such a modification no city or king. which does not appear to be very well known; dom has ever been considered well governed. its title is as follows: Good kings and the wisest statesmen have A Treatise on tie State and Christian Politics, always been in favor of this system; bad for the use of Kings and Princes, and those kings, on the contrary, elated by their power, holding government appointments, by Brother have pursued the opposite course. Hence, if John de Ste.-Marie, a religious ina the pro- a monarch, whoever he be, decides by himself, vince of St. Joseph, of the order of our glori-without taking advice, or against the advice su8s Father St. Francis. of his councillors, he passes the legitimate 464 NOTES. bounds of monarchy, and even when his de- citude; for the king is for them, rather than for cisions are fortunate, he is a tyrant. History himself.' Kings are under greater obligations is full of these examples and of their disas- to their kingdoms and states than to themtrous consequences; it will be enough to ad- selves;' in fact, if we consider the institution duce one only, that of Tarquin the Proud, as of kings and monarchs, we shall find that the related in the 1st book of Livy, a king whose king was appointed for the good of the kingpride was unbounded, and who, to render him- dom, and not the kingdom for the good of the self absolute, and to put every thing under his king." feet, strove to weaken the authority of the In his 3d chapter, of which the following is Roman Senate by diminishing the number of the title, " Whether the name of king necesSenators, thus arrogating to himself'an abso- sarily implies an office," he thus expresses himlute right of decision in all the affairs of the self:-"Besides what we have advanced, it empire." may be proved that the name of a king is the In chapter 2, in which the author treats of name of an office, by the common maxim,'the "the meaning of the word king," we read as benefice is the reward of the office.' Since, follows: "We meet here very opportunely therefore, kings receive such great benefices, with the third meaning of the word king, not only from the considerable tributes they rewhich is the same as that of father; as we find ceive from the State, but also from the advanin Genesis, when the Sichemites gave to their tage they derive from benefices and ecclesiasking the name of Abimelech, which means tical rents, they certainly do hold an office, and'Father and Lord.' Kings were formerly that the greatest of all, for which reason the styled the fathers of their states. Whence entire kingdom so bountifully assists them. King, Theedoric, defining royal majesty (as This is what St. Paul says in his Epistle to the Cassiodorus relates), makes use of these words: Romans: Ideo et tributa prcestatis, &c. KingPrimeAps et IP secundum virtutem qui omnibus prsesit et sub ipso sunt aliqui principantes secundum virtuNOTE 36, p. 361. tem, et tamen talis principatus ad omnes perI have spoken of the numerous Councils tinet, tum quia ex omnibus eligi possunt, tum held by the Church at different epochs; why, quia etiam ab omnibus eliguntur. Talis vero it will be asked, does she not hold them more est omnis politia bene commixta ex regno in frequently now? I will answer this question quantam unus praeest, et aristocratia in quanby quoting a judicious passage from Count de tum multi principantur secundum virtutem, et Maistre, in his work On the Pope, book i. chap. ex democratia, id est potestate populi in quan2:- tum ex popularibus possunt eligi principes, et " In the first ages of Christianity," says he, ad populum pertinet electio principum, et hoc "it was more easy to assemble Councils, be- fuit institutum secundum legem divinam. cause the Church was not so numerous as now, ivus Thomas. (la 2 Q. 90, art. 4.) and because the emperors possessed powers that enabled a sufficient number of Bishops to Ets ex qutuor prdictis potest colligi assemble, so that their decisions needed only defnitio legis quoe nihil est alind quam quaethe assent of other Bishops. Yet these Coun- dam rationis ordintio ad bonum co une ab oils were not assembled without much difficulty eo qni curam communitatis habet promulgata. and embarrassment. But in modern times, Q. 95, art. 4. since the civilized world has been divided into lity, that which offers great difficulties. On this ocso many sovereignties, and immeasurably in- casion we cannot help observing to sincere persons, creased by our intrepid navigators,.an Ecu- that, from these great difficulties, they mav judge of the lawfulness and sincerity of the desires manifestmenical Council has become a chimera.t Sim- ed by the soi-disant reformers and appellants to Coun' * See the remarks of his Excellency M. Campo- cils. They do not wish for Councils; but, under the manes on these abuses and false principles of policy, shadow of this word. they wish to escape the authoin his Discourse on the Popular Educatzon of Arti- rity of their legitimate superiors. (Note by the ausans, from page 119 to 160. thors of the Bibliotheque de Religion, published in + We ordiuarily call a chimera, or an impossibi- Spain.) NOTES. 481 Tertio est de ratione legis humanae ut insti- spoken elsewhere. Confining nysdlf to his tuatur a gubernante communitatem civitatis: History of Spain, I will observe with what sicut supra dictum est. (Quest. 90, art. 3.) Et liberty he expresses himself on the most delisecundum hoc distinguuntur leges humanae cate points, without meeting with any opposisecundum diversa regimina civitatum, quorum tion, either from the civil or from the ecclesiunum, secundum philosophum in III. Polit., astical authority. In his 1st book, chap. 4, cap. xi., est regnum, quando scilicetcivitas gu- speaking of the Aragonese, in his usual grave bernatur ab uno, et secundum hoc accipiuntur and severe tone, he says: "The Aragonese constitutiones principum; aliud vero regimen possess and enjoy laws and fueros very differest aristocratia, id est principatus optimorum ent from those of the other people of Spain; vel optimatum, et secundum hoc sumuntur re- they possess every thing most adapted for preeponsa prudentum et etiam senatusconsulta. serving liberty against the excessive power Aliud regimen est oligarchia, id est principatus of kings, for preventing this power from depaucorum divitum et potentum; et secundum generating and changing, by its natural tenhoc sumitur jus praetorium, quod etiam honora- dency, into tyranny; for they are not ignorant rium dicitur. Aliud autem regimen est populi, of this truth, that the right of liberty is genequod nominatur democratia; et secundum hoc rally lost by degrees." sumuntur plebiscita. Aliud autem est tyranni- It was precisely at this epoch that the clergy cum,.quod est omnino corruptum unde ex hoc expressed themselves with the greatest freedom non sumitur aliqua lex. Est etiam et aliquod on the most delicate of all subjects, that of conregimen ex istis commixtum, quod est opti- tributions. The venerable Palafox, in his memum, ct secundum hoc sumitur lex quam morial or petition to the king for ecclesiastical majores natu simul cum plebibus sanxerunt, ut immunity, said: "According to St. Augustine, Isidorus dicit lib. 5, Etymn. 0. cap. x. to the great Tostat, and other weighty authors, If certain declaimers are to be believed, it the Son of God appointed that the children of would seem that the principle, that it is the law God-that is the ministers of the Church, his which governs, and not the will of man, is priests-should not pay tribute to the pagan quite a recent discovery. But observe with princes. In fact, he addressed to St. Peter the what solidity and perspicuity the angelic doctor following question, already resolved by the eterexpounds this doctrine. nal wisdom of the Father: Reges gentiunt a 2 Q. 93 art. 1.) quibuls accipiunt tributum, a iliis, an ab alienis (1- -1' ar"St. Peter answered, Ab alienis; and our Lord Utrum fuerit utile aliquas leges poni ab ho- concluded with these words: Ergo liberi sunt minibus. filii. I may be allowed, sire, to make this Ad 211 dicendum, quod sicut Philosophus delicate observation, that the Divine Majesty dicit. 1. Rhetor. Melius est omnia ordinari does not say, Reges gentium a quibus capiunt lege, quam dimittere ju'dicum arbitrio, et hoc tributum, but a quibus accipiunt. By this word propter tria. Primo quidem, quia facilius est accipiunt, we understand the mildness and invenire paucos sapientes, qui sufficiant ad rec- mansuetude with which the payment of a tritas leges ponendas, quam multos; qui require- bute should always be exacted, in order to direntur ad recte judicandum de singulis. Se- minish the bitterness and repugnance accomcundo, quia illi qui leges ponunt, ex multo panying a tribute. tempore considerant quid lege ferendumn sit: "46. It is doubtless useful for the preservased judicia de singularibus factis fiunt ex casi- tion of the state, that, in the first place, subjects bus subito exortis. Facilius autem ex multis should give, in order that princes may then consideratis potest homo videre quid rectum receive. It is proper that kings should receive, sit, quam solum ex aliquo uno facto. Tertio, and employ the tribute paid them, for on this quia legislatores judicant in universali, et de depends the safety of crowns; butit is well that futuris: sed homines judiciis preesidentes judi subjects should first give it voluntarily. It is cant de prsesentibus; ad quve afficientur amore doubtless from this passage of Scripture, from vel odio, aut aliqua cupiditate; et sic eorum this expression of the Eternal Word, that the depravatur judicium. Quia ergo justitia ani- Catholic Crown, always so:pious, has received mata judicis non invenitur in npltis, et quia the holy doctrine, by virtue of which neither flexibilis est: ideo necessarium fuit in quibus- your majesty nor your illustrious predecessors cumque est possibile, legem determinare quid have ever permitted a tribute to be levied judicandum sit, etpaucissima arbitrio hbminum without its having first received the consent of committere. the kingdoms themselves, and been offered by In Spain, the Procuradores of the Cortes them; and your majesty is incomparably more dared not raise their voices against the excesses exalted by limiting and moderating your power, of power; and their timidity drew down the than by exercising it to its utmost extent. keen reproaches of P. Mariana. In the exami- "47. Sire, if laymen, who have no exemption nation to which he was subjected in the cele- in matters of tribute, enjoy that which the brated suit commenced against him on the kindness of your majesty and of the most. subject of the seven treatises, he confesses Catholic kings grant them; if they do not pay having applied to the Procuradores the epithets till they choose to make a voluntary offering; of vile, superficial, and utterly venal, only if nothing is received from them except on this striving to obtain the favor of the prince, and condition, will religion, your majesty's retheir own particular interests, without solici- nowned piety, and the devoted zeal of the tude for the public good. He added, that such Council, allow the clergy-the sons, the minwas the public cry, the general complaint, at isters of God, the. privileged, -those who are least at Toledo, where he was residing. exempt by divine and human law in all the I will leave unnoticed his work intituled De nations of the world, and among the very Rege et Regis iustitutione, of which I have pagans-to enjoy less favor than stranger, 61 2Q 482 NOTES. who arc not, like them, either ministers of the may now know that the Son of God takes Church or priests of God? Is the word capiunt, account of every item, and weighs in the balsire, to be applied exclusively to the ministers ance of his strict justice things which we of God, and the word accipiunt to men of the should account of little moment. world?" "The above reflection will serve to dispel the In his work intituled Historia Real Sagrada, false ideas of certain flatterers, who, to obtain the same writer raises his voice against tyranny the favor of princes, persuade them that they with extreme severity: are perfectly independent and the masters of "12. Such," says he, "is the law which the the lives and property of their subjects, free to.ing wihom you wcishfor will maintain in your dispose of them as they may think proper. In regard. The word law is here employed ironi- support of this pretended maxim, they allege, cally, as if God should say:'You imagine, as we have seen, the history of Samuel, who without doubt, that this king of yours would answered the people on the part of God, when govern according to law; on this supposition they were demanding a king,'You shall have you asked for him, since you complained that one, but on terrible conditions.' This-king was my tribunal did not govern you. Now, the to take from them their fields, their vineyards, law which this king will exercise towards you their oliveyards, to give them to his servants; will be, to disregard all law; and his law will he was to take their daughters for' slaves,'to eventually be tyranny respected.' The politi- make him ointments, and to be his cooks and cian who, relying upon this passage, should bakers.' And they have not observed that, as attribute as a right to the monarch a power John Bodin says, this is the interpretation of which is merely pointed out by God to the Philip Melancthon, which alone is sufficient to people as a chastisement, would be an uncivil- render it suspicious. Moreover, as St. Gregory, ized being, unworthy of being treated as a and after him other doctors, have observed, rational creature. The Lord, in this instance, this passage of Scripture does not establish the does not define what is the best; he does not just right of kings, but rather announces besay what he is giving them; these words are forehand the tyranny of'a great number of no appreciation of power; he merely declares princes; in fine, these words do not explain what would be the case, and what he condemns. what good princes might do, but merely what Who shall dare to found the origin of tyranny bad ones would usually do. Hence, when on justice itself? God says, that he whom Achab seized upon the vineyard of Naboth, they desire for a king will be a tyrant-not a God was angry with him, and we know how tyrant approved of by him, but a tyrant that he He treated him. When David, the elect of reprobates and chastises. And subsequent God, demanded a spot whereon to set up the events clearly shewed it, since there were in altar of Jebusee, he only asked it on condition Israel wicked kings, by whom the prophecy of paying the value of the land. was fulfilled, and Saints who obtained on the "For this reason princes should examine throne the mercy of God. The wicked kings with scrupulous attention whether contribuiterally accomplished the divine threat, by tions are just; for if they are not, doctors ioing what they were forbidden; the good ones decide that they cannot, without manifest inestablished their dignity upon propriety and justice, thus more or less infringe on the rights justice within prescribed limits." of their subjects. This doctrine is so Catholic Father Marquez, in his Christian Prince or and certain, that men holding. sound doctrine _Magistrate (Gobernador Cristiano), also en- affirm that, in this case, princes cannot impose larges on the same question; he expounds his fresh tributes, even though necessary, without opinion both theoretically and practically. the consent of the nation. For, say they, the (Chapter xvi. 53.) prince not being (which he certainly is not) (Chapter xvi. 5. the master of his subjects' property, cannot "Thus farwe have heard the words of Philo, make use of it without the consent of those writing on this event. As these words afforded from whom he is to receive it. This custom me an opportunity of reasoning on the obliga- has been long in practice in the kingdom of tions of Christian kings, I have taken care to Castile, where the laws of royalty prohibit the quote them at length. I will not expect these levying of apy new impost without the interkings to act like Moses; for they have not the vention of the Cortes: after having received miraculous aid which the Hebrew legislator re- the sanction of the Cortes, the impost is subceived for the relief of the people, nor the rod mitted to the vote of the towns; and the prince which God gave him to make water flow from does not consider his demand granted till it the rock at need. But I will recommend them has received the sanction of the majority of the to reflect maturely on the additional services towns. Edward I. of England made a similar they shall attempt to exact from their subjects, law, according to many authors of weight; and and the burdens they shall impose on them. Philip of Commines says, that it was the same Let them reflect that they are bound to justify in France till the time of Charles VII., who, the motive of their request in all truth, and urged by an extreme necessity, suppressed without any false coloring- always and con- these formalities, and levied a tax without stantly aware that they are in the presence of waiting for the consent of the States, and this God, that the eyes of God are fixed on their inflicted on the kingdom so deep a wound, that hands, that He will require from them a strict it will long continue unhealed. If we may account of their actions. For, as the holy credit certain affirmations, this author reports, doctor of Nazianzen says, the Son of God came that it was then asserted that the king had designedly into the world at the taking of a escaped from the guardianship exercised by the census and a resettlement of the imposts, in kingdom; but that his own opinion is, that order to confound kings who would have ap- kings cannot, without the consent of their peo. o'inted them through caprice; so that kings pie, exact a single farthing; princes acting NOTES. 483 otherwise, says he, fall under the Pope's ex- passage must be favourable to one or other of communication; no doubt that of the bull In the two opinions; for, if it were intended to GOena Domini. For my own part, I ought to establish that kings would possess in conscienco confess that I do not find this in Philip de the authority set forth in this passage, they Commines-...... With respect to this would certainly have the right of seizing the second point, it is evident, that the prince can- property of one of their subjects to give it to not, on his own authority, impose new tributes another. If this passage is merely meant as a without the consent of the nation, whenever declaration of the injustices, of the extortions, this nation shall have acquired by any of the and the tyrannies of wicked monarchs, it is no reasons mentioned a contrary right, which I less certain that in Scripture the deed is conconsider to be the case in Castile. No one, in sidered unjust; for this deed is alleged as an fact, will deny that kingdoms at their com- example of what tyrants would do; now if it mencement have a right to choose their kings had been permitted to a good king, it would not on this condition, or render them such services have been quoted as an example of tyranny, as as to obtain in return that no new imposts shall the Scriptures suppose it. be, laid on them without their consent. Now, "Thus, this text alone, even were there no in either case, there will be a compact made, other in support of this doctrine, would satisfy from which kings cannot depart; and it is of me, that kings cannot lawfully compel their no consequence, as some imagine it to be, subjects to relinquish their property for less whether they have obtained their kingdoms than its value, not even under pretext of the through the election of their subjects, or by public good. In fact, were this pretext valid, mere force of arms. Although it is probable, it would not have been difficult for the kings indeed, that a State yielding itself of its own of Israel to find an excuse for their tyranny; accord, will obtain greater privileges and better they might have alleged, that it was important conditions than those acquired by a just war, to the public good to reward servants whose it would not, however, be impossible for a State, fidelity was so advantageous to the interests of in choosing a king, to confer upon him all its the kingdom. Further, King Achab might power in an absolute manner, and without this have urged, that the amusements of the prince restriction, with a viewto lay him under greater formed a part of the public good, since the obligations, and to testify to him a greater people are so much interested in the health of degree of devotedness; and, on the other hand, the prince; and under this pretext might have a king, who had subjected a kingdom by force deprived Naboth of his vineyard in order to of arms, might nevertheless voluntarily grant enlarge his gardens. We find, however, that it this privilege, with a view to obtain its this pretext did not justify him in compelling gratitude, and more affectionate obedience on Naboth even to sell his vineyard; the king, its part. The positive rulAd therefore, for this although grieved, was not offended by this particular right, will be the contract made, man's refusal, neither was it his intention to whether virtually or expressly, between the seize the vineyard, had not the impious Jezabel State and the prince; a contractwhich should be furnished him with the means of doing so. inviolable, especially if it is sealed by an oath." "Reason is evidently in favour of this opinion. Kings are the ministers of justice, and The Prince, or Christian M~agistrate. have been appointed to administer and uphold (Liv. bch. xxxix. _2.) justice among the people. As St. Thomas teaches, the contract in buying and selling is "Princes, it is said, may compel their sub- only just in proportion as the price is equivajects to sell at half-price, or to give gratui- lent to the thing purchased. Public, it is true, tously, a part of their property. This opinion should be preferred to individual interest; in is generally founded on the law which ordains case, therefore, that a State is in danger of that, when a ship in a tempest has been saved dissolution, the monarch might demand proby throwing overboard a part of the cargo, the perty at a less price, or even for nothing, just proprietors of the remaining part are obliged to as he might compel the citizen to expose his make a proportionate contribution to indemnify life, which is of still greater value, in defending the sufferers for the loss they have sustained, the common cause in a just war. This case, Bartholus and other authors have inferred from however, as P. Molina observes, is impossible, this, thatin a time of necessity and famine the since the monarch would always be able to monarch may require his subjects to give gratui- indemnify the individual for the loss he sustously, and afortiori to sell at a lower price, a tained, by levying for this purpose a general portion of their property to those in need. The tax, a just tribute, and one that the State would monarch, say they, might, without any doubt, be bound to pay. To prove this still more render property common, as it was before the clearly, let us imagine the most urgent case establishment of social rights; he may conse- possible; let us suppose that the king is bequently take it from one of his subjects and sieged in his capital by a tyrant; the tyrant give it to another. is about to enter sword and torch in hand; he "It is certainly said in the laws of the kings offers to raise the siege on condition of receivof Israel, that he who should be chosen by God ing a statue of gold of great value, formerly might seize upon the vineyards and property the property of his ancestors, which a subject of his subjects, to confer them on his own ser- of the besieged king, the commander-in-chief vants; but the doctors do not support their of his armies, had taken in the plunder of a arguments on this text. In fact, as we have town, and made the inalienable property of the said in chapter 16th, book i., the question does eldest son of his family. To render the case not concern the rights of a good prince, but the still more pressing, let us suppose that tho tyrannical acts of a bad one. Now, a careful tyrant has a dearly-cherished relation in the study of the Scriptures will shew, that this service of the besieged king, and that he will 484 NOTES. be satisfied if a rich lord of the kingdom, possessing a great number of estates, be de- NOTE 39, p. 382. spoiled, and his property conferred on his relation. It cannot be doubted that, in order Some persons imagine, that in speaking or to purchase the lives of all, this arrangement the loss of liberty in Spain, the question may might be entered into; and that the king be readily reduced to one point of view, as if would be justified in acceding to the demand, the kingdom had always possessed the unity in taking the statue, or even the whole of this which it only acquired in the eighteenth cenproperty, to confer it on the tyrant's relation. tury, and only then in an incomplete manner. But no one will assert that the lord should A perusal of history, and especially of the suffer the whole loss. The State would be codes of the different provinces of which the under the obligation of indemnifying him for monarchy was composed, will convince us that the loss, by taking upon itself the indemnifi- the central power has been created and fortified cation, the lord merely contributing his quota; among us very slowly; and that at the time for this reason, that it would be opposed to when this difficult task was nearly accomplished natural justice for the burdens of the whole body in Castile, much still remained to be done in to fall upon a single member, which would be Aragon and Catalonia. Our constitutions, our the case according to the law proposed by the customs, our manners, in the seventeenth cenopponents. If, in a case of shipwreck, all the tury, evidently prove that the monarchy of cargo were thrown overboard to save the ship PhiliF II., such as we conceive it, strong and and the lives and fortunes of all, the obligation irresistible, was not yet established in the being common to all, it would not be just that crown of Aragon. -I will abstain from adducing it should fall exclusively upon the owners; here documents and quoting facts with which because the cargo could best be thrown over- every one is acquainted; the dimensions of board and most endangered the ship's safety: this volume require me to be brief. the loss should be borne by all, even by those whohad with them things only of little weight, as NOTE 40, p. 388. jewels or diamonds, for instance; since neither these latter proprietors nor the vessel herself The immortal work of Count de Maistre, in could be saved without lightening her by which he so ably refutes the calumnies of the throwing overboard the heavier portion of the enemies of the Apostolic See, is well known. cargo. Among so many and such profound observa" The law decrees also that the owner of the tions, there is one deserving of particular attenvessel shall pay his quota. Not. that he is ob- tion: that on the moderation of the Popes in liged to indemnify the owners of the merchan- every thing relating to the extension of their dise lost, because he sees them in need; it dominions, when He points out the difference may be supposed, indeed, that these parties are between the Roman and the other European rich, and, although their present loss is extreme, Courts. "It is," says he, "a very remarkable they will nevertheless be under the obligation circumstance, but either disregarded or not of returning what would then have been lent sufficiently attended to, that the Popes have to them; for, as the doctors decide, there is no never taken advantage of the great power in obligation of giving to the rich man when he their possession fQr the aggrandisement of their suffers a heavy loss, when a loan will answer States. What could have been more natural, the same end. But it is said that the obliga- for instance, or more tempting to human nation of the master of a ship is founded on the ture, than to reserve a portion of the provinces fact, that all the passengers and the proprietors conquered from the Saracens, and which they being interested in saving their lives and their gave up to the first occupant, to repel the property, the risk and the loss of what was Turkish ascendency, always on the increase? thrown overboard ought to fall on all, and not But this, however, they never did, not even exclusively on the owners of what was lost. As with regard to the adjacent countries, as in the a proof that this is the correct interpretation, it instance of the Two Sicilies, to which they had will be sufficient to notice the'summary of the incontestable rights, at least according to the title, and the very words of the law, which are: ideas then prevailing, and over which they Eo quod id tributum servatce mercedes deberent. were nevertheless contented with an empty " But, except in this case, or in others equally sovereignty, which soon ended in the haquenee, pressing, if the ruin of the State would not a slight tribute, and merely nominal, which result from the mere fact of an individual the bad taste of the age still disputes with icfusing to yield up his house to the prince, them. the latter could not compel the proprietor to "The Popes may have made too much, at the give it up for a less price than its just value, time, of this universal sovereignty, which an and still less for nothing; for so long as the opinion equally universal allowed them. They persons and the property of the State are safe, may have exacted homage; may indeed, if you it is of no importance to the body corporate will, have too arbitrarily imposed taxes. I do whether such or such persons are rich or poor; not wish to enter into these points here, but it no one, in fact, in the general community pos- still remains certain that they have never sesses a fixed degree from which he can neither sought to increase their dominions at the exdescend nor rise. This instability observable pense of justice, whilst all other governments among the members of the same State, some fell under this anathema; and, at the present losing what others gain, and vice versa, is in- time even, with all our philosophy, our civiliseparable from the state of society, such is the zation, and our fine books, there is not perhaps instability of temporal affairs; and the public one of the European powers in a condition to good generally sneaking, neither loses nor justify all its possessions before God and reagains by it.' son." (Du Pape, book ii. chap. 6.) NOTES. 485 NOTE 41, p. 350. rationibus sunt asserta, quamvis sic intellectn penetrari non possint ut quse verbi.s valeant I will here insert some passages in which St. explicari: nullatenus tamen certitudinis eorum Ansei n explains the motives that induced him nutat soliditas. Nam si superior consideratio to wr:.te, and the method which he intended to rationabiliter comprehendit incomprehensibile follow in his writings. esse, quomodo eadem summa sapientia sciat ea quse fecit de quibus tam multa non scire nei. iio.olo. y u.u. Ganuaiesi. cesse est; quis explicet quomodo sciat aut Praosatio beat[ Anselmi Episcopi Clatuariens's i. dicat se ipsam, de qua aut nihil, aut vix aliquid lt} Monologlbiuhm. homini sciri possibile est? Quidam fratres ssepe me studioseque precati Incipit procemium in Prosologuion librum Qunt, ut quiedam de lis, qme de meditanda di- Anselml, Abbatis Beccensis, et Archiepiscopi sunt, ut queedam de illis, quee de meditanda di- Cantuariensis. vinitatis essentia, et quibusdam aliis hujus Postuans opusc meditationi cohierentibus, usitato sermone col- Postqum opusculum r uoddam velut esem loquendo protuleram, sub quodam eis medita- plum meditan de raone fidei, cogentibus tionis exemplo describerem. Cujus scilicet me precibus qnorumdam fratrum in persona scribendia meditationis magis secundum suam alicujus tacite secum ratiocinando quse nesciat voluntatem quam secundm rei facilitatem aut investigantis edidi, considerans illud esse multorum concathenatione contexturn argumnenmeam possibilitatem hanc mihi foram pr-ion contextm arguenstituerunt: quatenus auctoritate scripture peni- torum, coepi mecum querere: si forte posset tus nihil in ea persuaderetur. Sed quidquid ivenireunum argumentu, quod nullo aio ad per singulas investigationes finis assereret, id se probandum, quam se solo indigeret, et solum ita esse plano stylo et vulgaribus argumentis ad astruendum quia Deus vere est; et quia est simplicique disputatione, et rationis necessitas summum bonum nullo alio indigens, et quo breviter cogeret, et veritatis claritas patenter omnia indigent ut sint et bene sint, et quoostenderet. Voluerunt etiam ut nec simplicibus cumque credlmus de dvina substantia suffipeneque fatuis objectionibus mihi occurrentibus cre Ad quod cum sepe studoseue cogitaobviare contemnerem, quod quidem diu tentare tiones converterem, atque aliquando mihi videretur jam capi posse quod quecrhabam, alirecusavi, atque me cum re ipsa comparans, vderetur capi posse quod querebam a multis me rationibus excusare tentavi. Quanto quando mentis aclem omnino fugeret: tandem enim id quod petebant, usu sibi optabant faci- desperans volui cessare, velut ab inquiitione lius: tanto mihi illud actu injungebant diffici- re quam inveniri esset impossibile. Sed cum lius. Tandem tamen vitus, tum precum illlam cogitationem, ne mentem meam frustra v m precum occupando ab allis in quibus proficere possem modesta importunitate, turn studii eorum non impediret ab alnis ine velus proficere possem contemnenda honestate, invitus quidem propter impdire, penitus a me vellem excludere, tune rei difficultatem, et ingenii mei imbecillitatem, mags ac magis nolenti et defendeti, se cpit quod precabantur incoepi, sed libenter propter cum importunitate quadam ingerere. Quadam'. eorum caritatei, quantum potui secundum i-gitur die cum vehementer ejus importunitati ipsorum definitionem effeci. Ad quod cum ea resistendo fatigarer, in ipso cogitationum conspe sim adductus, ut quidquid facerem illis flictu sic se obtulit quod desperabam, ut stusldiose cogitationem amplecterer, quam sollicitus solis a quibus exigebatur, esset notum, et paulo ose t m a erer qam sol post idipsum ut vilem rem fastidientibus, con- repelebam. i stimans igitur equd me gaudetemptu esset obruendum, scio enim me in eo bam ivensse. i hc ptum est uibuam, legenti non tam precantibus satisfacere potuisse, quam plciturum. De hoc ipso et quibusdam alis precibus me prosequentibus finem posuisee. q sub persona conantis erigere mentem suam ad precibus me prosequentibus finema posuisse. D Neseio tamen quomodo sic preter spem evenit, contemplandum Deum, et quearentis intelligere Nescio tamen quomodo sic preeter spem evenit, ut non solum prsedicti fratres sed et plures alii quod credit, subditut scripsi opusculum. Et scripturam ipsam, quisque eam sibi transcri- quoniam nec istud ne illud cujus supra memini, bendo in longum memorise commendare sata- dignum libri nomine, aut cui auctoris prseponegerent, quam ego ssepe tractans nihil potui retur nomen judicbam: nec tamen sine aliquo invenire me in ea dixisse, quod non catholi- titulo, quo aliquem in cujus manus venirent, quodammodo ad se legendum. invitarent, dimitcorum patrum, et maxime beati Augustini uodam a legenu iaren, di scriptis cohereat. tenda putabam, unicuique dedi titulum: ut prius exemplum meditandi de ratione fidei, et sequens fides quserens intellectum diceretur. Idem. Quod hoe licet inexplicabile.sit, tamien Sed cum jam a pluribus et his titulis utrumque credendum sit. (Cap. Ixii.) transumptum esset, coegerunt me plures et maxime reverendus Archiepiscopus LugdunVidetur mihi hujus tam sublimis rei secretum ensis Hugo nomine, fungens in Gallia legatione transcendere omnem intellectus aciem humani: apostolica, proecepit auctoritate, ut nomen et idcirco conatum explicandi qualiter hoc sit, meum illis prsescriberem. Quod ut aptius fieret continendum puto. Sufficere namque debere illud quidem Monologuium, id est Soliloquium, existimo rem incomprehensibilem indaganti si istud vero Prosologuion, id est Alloquium ad hoc rationando pervenerit, ut eam certissime nominavi. esse cognoscat, etiamsi penetrare nequeat intellectu quomodo ita sit, nec idcirco minus his ad- I have said that St. Anselm excelled Deshibendam fidei certitudinem, quae probationibus cartes in his manner of proving the existence necessariis nulla alia repugnante ratione asse- of God: let the reader, indeed, peruse the folruntur, si suse naturalis altitudinis incompre- lowing passages. I do not, however, intend to hensibilitate explicari non patiantur. Quid pronounce an opinion on the merits of this autem tam incomprehensibile, quam id quod demonstration; my business is, to notice the supra omnia est? Quapropter si ea quse de progress of the human mind, and not to resolnv sua essentia hactenus disputata sunt necessariis philosophical questions. 2Q2 f86 NOTES. PROSOLOGUIUM D. ANSELMI. et in re sit; quoniam aliter majus omnibus ema non potcrit. Responderi potest, quod hoc jan: Quod Deus non possit cogitari non esse. esse dicitur in intellectu meo, non ob aliud, Quod utique sic vere est, ut nec cogitari nisi quia id quod dicitur intelligo. possit non esse. Nam potest cogitari esse The passages I have just quoted will have aliquid, quod non possit cogitari non esse, quod shewn to my readers that thought was nof op. majus est quam quod non esse cogitari potest. pressed in the Catholic Church. The most Quare si id, quo majus ncquit cogitari, potest eminent doctors were accustomed to reason on cogitari non esse: id ipsum, quo majus cogitari the most important subjects with a just and nequit, non est id quo majus cogitari nequit; reasonable independence; and altough with quod convenire non potest Sic ergo vere est profound respect for the teaching of the Cathoaliquid, quo majus cogitari non potest, ut nec lie Church, they nevertheless surveyed, as well cogitari possit non esse. Et hoc es tu, Domine as Abelard and better, the field of true phiDeus noster. Sic ergo vere es, Domine Deus losophy. We cannot expect from human inmeus, ut nec cogitari possis non esse. Et me-telligence at this epoch ore than is to be telligence at this epoch more than is to be rito. Si enim aliqua mens posset cogitare all- found in St. Anselm. How is it, therefore, quid melius te, ascenderet creatura super Crea- hat such eulogiums have been passed upon torem; et judicaret de Creatore, quod valde Roscelin and Abelard, without ever mentioning est absurdum. Et quidem quidquid est aliud estabsurdum. Et qdem quidqd est a this holy doctor? Why present a picture of lprater solum te, potest cogitari non esse. the intellectual movement so incomplete, and Solus igitur verissime omnium, et ideo maxime not insert in it so noble and beautiful a figure? omnium habes esse, quia quidquid aliud est If y ould know ow incorrect it is that non sic vere est, et idcirco minus habet esse. Abelard, as M. Guizot affirms, abstained from Cur itaque, dzxit ins iens inm corde s8t son est attacking the doctrines of the Church-how inDeus? Cum causa in promptu sit rationali correct. Guiot is in his statement of the.. correct M. Guizot is in his statement of the menti, te maxime omnium esse? Cur, nisi causes which excited the zeal of the pastors of stultus et insipiens? the Church against Abelard, read the letter of the Bishops of Gaul to Pope Innocent, in which. uomodo npens diit in corde s quod co you will find a complete recital of the origin non pote. (Cp. iv.)and cause of this important affair. Iere is the Verum quomodo dixit insipiens in corde suo letter: quod cogitare non potuit, aut quomodo cogitare EPISTOLA CCCLXX. non potuit quod dixit in corde, cum idem sit dicere in corde, et cogitare. Quod si vere, imo Reverendissimo Patri et Domino, INNOCENTIO, quia vere, et cogitavit: quia dixit in corde et Dei gratia summto Pontifici, Henricus Seno. non dixit in corde, quia cogitare non potuit; nenilum Archiepiscopns, Carnotensis Episconon uno tantum modo dicitur aliquid in corde pus, Sanctce Sedis Apostoliccefanulus, Aurevel cogitatur. Aliter enim cogitatur res, cum lianensis, Antissiodorensis, Trecensis, IJeldenvox earn significans cogitatur: aliter cum sis Episcopi, devotas orationes et debitam idipsum, quod res est, intelligitur. Illo itaque obedientias. modo, potest cogitari Deus non esse: isto vero, Nulli dubium est quod ea qus Apostolica firninime. Nullus quippe intelligenu id quod mantur auctoritate, rata semper existunt; nee Deus est, potest cogitare quia Deus non est; alicujus possunt deinceps mutilri cavillatione, licet heec verba dicat in corde, aut sine ulla, vel invidia depravari. Ea ropter ad vestram aut cum aliqua extranea significatione. Deus Apostolicar Sedem, Beatissime Pater, referre enim, est id quo majus cogitari non potest.dignum censuimus quedam qua) nuper in nosQuod qui bene intelligit, utique intell igit itractari presentia. Que quoniam ipsum sic esse, ut nec cogitatione queat non ipsum' sic esse ut nec cogitatione queat et nobis, et multis religiosis ac sapientibus viris esse. Qmi ergo intelligit si esse Deum, nequit rationabiliter acta visa sunt, vestre serenitatis eum non esse cogitare. Gratias tibi, bone eumnon esse cogitare. Gratias tibi, b one expectant comprobari judicio, simul et auctoriioinine, gratias tibi, quia quod prius credidi t perptuo roborari. Itaqne cum per totam te donante, jam sic intelligo te illuminante; fere GalIiam in civitatibus, vicis et castellis, a nt si ie esso nolhm cred.r6, h6n POsim n0n Scholaribus non solum intra chiolas, sed etiam intelligere. triviatim: nec a litteratis, aut provectis tantum, Ejn1sdem beati Anselmi liber pro insipiente sed a pueris et simplicibus, ant certe stultis, de in cipit. Sancta Trinitate, quse Deus est, disputaretur: insuper alia multa ab eisdem, absona prorsus et Dubitanti, utrum sit; vel neganti quod sit absurda, et plane fidei catholicre, sanctorumque aliqua talis natura, qua nihil majus cogitari Patrum auctoritatibus obviantia proferrentur; possit; tamen esse illam, huic dicitur primo cumque ab his qui sane sentiebant, et eas inprobari; quod ipse negans vel ambigens de eptias rejiciendas esse censebant, sepius admoilla, jam habeat eam in intellectu, cum audiens niti corriperentur, vehementius convalescebant, illam dici, id quod dicitur intelligit: deinde, et auctoritate magistri sui Petri Abailardi, et quia quod intelligit necesse est, ut non in solo cujusdam ipsius libri, cui Theologice indiderat intellectu, sed etiam in re sit. Et hoc ita pro- nomen; nee non et aliorum ejusdem opusculooatur; quia majus est esse in intellectu et in rum freti ad astruendas profanas adinventiones re, quam in solo intellectu. Et si illud in solo illas, non sine multarum animarum dispendio, 2st intellectu, majus illo erit quidquid etiam sese magis ac magis armabant. Quse enim et fuerit in re, at si majus omnibus, minus erit nos, et alios plures non parum moverant ac aliquo, et non erit majus omnibus quod utique laeserant; inde tamen quvestionem facere vererepugnat. Et ideo necesse est ut, majus omni- bantur. bus, ouod est jam probatum esse in intellectu, Verum Dominus Abbas Claree-vallis, his a diL NOTES. 48T ersis et ssepius auditis, immo certe in pre- ductis a Domino 2r1ara-vallensi auctoritatibus axato magistri Petri Theologi(e libro, nec non non solum falsas, sed et hereticas esse evict allis ejusdem libris, in quorum forte lectionem dentissime comprobatas, pridie ante factam ad inciderat, diligenter inspeclis; secreto prius; vos appellationem damnavimus. Et quia multos ac deinde secumn duobus aut tribus adhibitis in errorem perniciosissimum et plane damnatestibus, juxta Evangelicum praeceptum, homi- bilem pertrahunt, eas auctoritate vestra, dinem convenit: Et ut auditores suos a talibus lectissime Domine, perpetua damnatione notari; compesceret, librosque suos corrigeret, amicabi- et omnes qui pervicaciter et contentiose illas liter satis ac familiariter illum admonuit. Plures defenderint, a vobis, equissime Pater, juxta etiam Scholarium adhortatus est, ut et libros poena mulctari unanimiter et multa precum venenis plenos repudiarent et rejicerent: et a instantia postulamus. doctrina, quse fidem lasdebat Catholicam, cave- Ssepe dicto vero Petro, si Reverentia vestra rent et abstinerent. Quod magister Petrus mi- silentium imponeret, et tam legendi, qualn scrinus patienter et nimium aegre ferens, crebro nos bendi prorsus interrumperet facultatem, et lipulsare ccepit, nec ante voluit desistere, quoad bros ejus perverso sine dubio dogmate respersos Dominum Clara-vellensem Abbatem super hoc condemnaret, avulsis spinis et tribulis ab Eccle-.cribentes, assignato die, scilicet octavo Pente- sia Dei, prevaleret adhuc leta Christi seges sucuostes, Senonis ante nostram submonuimus ve- crescere, flcrere, fructificare. Quaedam autem nire presentiam: quo se vocabat et offerebat de condemnatis a nobis capitulis vobis, Reveparatum magister Petrus ad probandas et defen- rende Pater, conscripta transmisimus, ut pe dendas de quibus illum Dominus Abbas Clara- hec audita reliqui corpus operis facilius asti vallensis, quomodo prsetaxatum est, reprehende- metis. rat sententias. Cseterum.Dominus Abbas, nec Observe how St Bernard explains the system ad assignatum diem se venturum, nec contra and errors of the celebrated Abelard. In chapPetrum sese disceptaturum nobis remrandavit. ter 1 of the treatise which he wrote, De erroriSed quia magister Petrus interim suos nihilo- bus Petri Abaila-di, he says: minus cmopit undequaque convocare discipulos; "Habemus in Francia novum de veteri magiset obsecrare, ut ad futuram inter se, Dominum- tro Theologun, qui ab ineunte etate sua in que Abbatem Clara-vallensem disputationem, arte dialectica lusit; et nunc in scripturis sanctis una cum illo suam sententiam simul et scienti- insanit. Olim damnata et sopita dogmata, tam am defensuri venirent; Et hoc Dominum Clara- sua videlicet quam aliena suscitare conatur, invallensem minime lateret; veritus ipse, ne prop- super et nova addit. Qui dum omnium cqua ter occasionemn absentia suse tot profanae, non sunt coelo sursum, et quce in terra deorsum, sententise sed insaniae, tam apud minus intelli- nihil preter solumr Nescio nescire dignatur; gentes, quam earumdem defensores majore ponit in coelum os suum, et scrutatur alta Dei, digna3 viderentur auctoritate, proedicto quem sibi rediensque ad nos refert verba ineffabilia, quve designaveramus die, licet eum minime suscep- non licet homini loqui. Et dum paratus est de isset, tactus zelo pii fervoris, imo certe Sancti omnibus reddere rationem, etiam que sunt Spiritus igne succensus, sese nobis ultro Senonis supra rationem, et contra rationem prasumit, presesntavit. Illa vero die, scilicet octava Pente- et contra fidem. Quid enim magis contra ratiocostes, convenerant ad nos Senonis Fratres et nem, quam ratione rationem conari transcenSuffraganei nostri Episcopi, ob honorem et reve- dere? Et quid magis contra fidem; quin crerentiain sanctarum, quas in Ecclesia nostra po- dere nolle, quidquid non possit ratione attinpulo revelaturos nos indixeramus, Reliquiarum. gere?" Itaque praesente glorioso Rege Francorum In chapter 4, he sums up, in a few words, Ludovico cum Wilhelmo religioso Nivernis Co- the aberrations of the dialectician: mite, Domino quoque Rhemnensi Archiepiscopo, "Sed advertite caetera. Omitto quod dicit cum quibusdam suis suffraganeis Episcopis no- spiritum timoris Domini non fuisse in Domino: bis etiam, et suffraganeis nostris, exceptis Pa- timorem Domini castum in futuro seculo non risiis et Nivernis, Episcopis przesentibus, cum futurum: post consecrationem panis et calicis multis religiosis Abbatibus et sapientibus, val- priora accidentia quze remanent pendere in aere: deque litteratis clericis adfuit Dominus Abbas dsemonum in nobis suggestiones contactu fieri Clara-vallensis; adfuit magister Petrus cum lapidum et herbarum, prout illorum sagax mafautoribus suis. Quid multa? Dominus Abbas litia novit; harum rerum vires diversas, divercum librum Theologie magistri Petri proferret sis incitandis et incendendis vitiis, convenire: in medium, et quas annotaverat absurda, imo Spiritum Sanctum esse animam mundi: niunhaeretica plane capitula de libro eodema propo- dum juxta Platonem tanto excellentius animal neret, ut ea magister Petrus vel a se scripta ne- esse, quanto meliorem animam habet Spiritumn garet, vel si sua fateretur, ant probaret, aut Sanctum. Ubi dum multum sudat quomodo corrigeret: visus est diffidere magister Petrus Platonem faciat Christianum, se probat ethniAbailardus, et subterfugere, respondere noluit, eum. -Haec inquam omnia, aliasque istiusmodi sed quamvis libera sibi daretur audientia, tiL- nanias ejus non Tpaucas prsetereo, venio ad tumque locum, et aquos haberet judices, ad graviora. Non quod vel ad ipsa cuncta revestram tamen, sanctissime Pater, appellans spondeam, magnis enimopus voluminibus esset. prnsentiam, cum suis a conventu discessit. Illa loquor qus tacere non possum. Nos autem licet appellatio ista, minus Ca- "Cumn de Trinitate loquitur," says he in his nonica videretur, Sedi tamen Apostolicse defe- letter 192, "sapit Arium, cum de Gratia sapit rentes, in personam hominis nullam voluimus Pelagium, cur de persona Christi sapit Nesproferre sententiam: Ceterum sententias pravi torium." dogmatis ipsius, quia multo infecerant, et sui Pope Innocent, condemning the doctrines of conta.gione adusque cordium intima penetrave- Abelard, says: "In Petri Abailardi perniciosa rant, saxpe in audientia publica lectas et re- doctrina, et praedictorum hbereses, et alia perlectas, et tam verissimis rationibus, quam Beati versa dogmata catholicas fidei obviantia pulluAugustini, aliorumque Sanctorum Patrum in- lare cceperunt." APPENDIX. NOTE (a), p. 289. Salomon dicit: "Ubi non est gubernatoi, dissipabitur populus." Hoc autem rationabiliter Quod necesse est homines simul viventes ab accidit: non enim idem est quod propium, et aliquo dilingenter regi. quod commune. Secundum propria quidem Et siquidem homini conveniret singulariter differunt, secundum autem commune uniuntur: vivere, sicut multis animalium, nullo alio diri- diversorum autem diversae sunt causae. Oportet gente indigeret ad finem, sed ipse sibi unus- igitur prter id quod movet ad propium bonum quisque esset rex sub Deo summo rege, inuniuscujusque, esse aliquid, quod movet ad quantum per lumen rationis divinitus datum bonum commune multorum. Propter quod et sibi, in suis actibus seipsum dirigeret. Natu- in omnibus qus in unum ordinantur, aliquid rale autem est homini ut sit animal sociale, et inenitur alterius regitivum. In universitate politicum, in multitudine vivens, magis etiam enim corporum, per primum corpus, scilice quara omnia alia animalia, quod quidem natu- celeste, alia corpora ordine quodam divinoe proralis necessitas declarat. Aliis enim animalibus videntie reguntur, omniaque corpora, per creanatura preeparavit cibum, tegumenta pilorum, turamrationalem. In uno etiam homine anima defensionem, ut dentes, cornua, ungues, vel regit corpus, atque inter animae partes irascibilis saltem velocitatem ad fugam. Homo autem et concapiscibilis ratione reguntur. Itemquo institutus est nullo horum sibi a natura prsepa- inter membra corporis unum est principale, rato, sed loco omnium data est ei ratio, per quod omnia movet ut cor, aut caput. Oportet quam sibi haec omnia officio rmanuum posset prae- igitur esse in omni multitudine aliquod regitiparare, ad quse omnia praeparanda unus homo vum. (I). Tb., Opuse. de Regimine Principum, non sufficit. Namunus homo per se sufficienter 1. i. cap. 1.) vitam transigere non posset. Est igitur homini naturale, quod in societate multorum vivat. NOTE (b), p. 290. Amplius, aliis animalibus insita est naturalis industria ad omnia ea quee sunt eis utilia vel Ubi considerandum est, quod dominium, vel nociva, sicut ovis naturaliter extimet lupum prellatio introducta sunt ex jure humane: disinimicum. Quaedam etiam animalia ex natu- tinctio autem fidelium et infidelium est ex jure rali industria cognoscunt aliquas herbas medi- divino. /Jus autem divinum quod est ex gratia, cinales, et alia eorum vitae necessaria. Homo non tollit jus humanum quod est ex naturali autem horum, quee sunt suae vitae necessaria, ratione; ideo distinctio fidelium et infidelium naturalem cognitionem habet solum in com- secundum se considerata, non tollit dominium, muni, quasi eo per ratioriem valente ex uni- et praelationem infidelium supra fideles. (2. 2. versalibus principiis ad cognitionem singulo- quest. 10, art 10.) rum, quae necessaria sunt humanae vitae, pervenire. Non est autem possibile, quod unus NOTE (c), p. 290. homo ad omnia hujusmodi per suam rationem pertingat. Est igitur necessarium homini, qubd Respondeo dicendum quod sicut supra dictum in multitudine vivat, et unus ab alio adjuvetur, est (quest. 10, art. 10), infidelitas secundum se et diversi diversis inveniendis per rationem ipsam non repugnat dominio, eo quod domioccuparentur, puta, unus in medicina, alius in nium introductum est de jure gentium, quod hoc, alius in alio. Hoc etiam evidentissime est jus humanum, Distinctio autem fidelium decl:ratur per hoc, quod est proprium hominis et infidel.um est secundum jus divinum, per locutione uti, per quam unus homo aliis suum quod non tollitur jus humanum. (2. 2. quest. conceptum totaliter potest exprimere. Alia 12, art. 2.) quidem animallia exprimunt mutuo passiones suas, in communi, ut canis in latratu iram, et NOTE (d), p. 290. alia animalia passiones suas diversis modis. Magis igitur homo est communicativus alteri, Respondeo dicendum quod sicut actiones quam quodcumque aliud animal, quod gregale rerum naturalium procedunt ex potentiis naturvidetur, ut grus, formica, et apis. Hoc ergo alibus: i'ia etiam operationes humanee proceconsiderans Salomon in Ecclesiaste ait: "Me- dunt ex humana voluntate. Oportuit autem in lius est esse duos, quam unum. Habent enim rebus naturalibus, ut superiora moverent infeemolumentum mutuse societatis." Si ergo natu- riora ad suas actiones per excellentiam naturale est homini quod in societate multorum ralis virtutis collatee divinitus. Unde et oportet vivat, necesse est in hominibus esse, per quod in rebus humanis, quod superiores moveant inmultitudo regatur. Multis enim existentibus feriores per suam voluntatem ex'vi auctoritatis hominibus et uno quoque id quod est sibi con- divinitus ordinate. Movere autem per rationem gruum providerite, multitudo in diversa disper- et voluntatem est prsecipere; et ideo sicut ex geretur, nisi etiam esset aliquis de eo quod ad ipso ordine naturali divinitus institute inferiora bonum multitudinis pertinet. curam habens, in rebus naturalibus necesse habent subjici sicut et corpus hominis, et cujuslibet animalis motioni superiorum, ita etiam in rebus humanis deflueret, nisi esset aliqua vis regitiva commu- ex ordine juris naturalis et divini, tenentur nis in corpore, quue ad bonum commune om- inferiores suis superioribus obedire. (2. 2 niummembrorumintenderet. Quod considerans quest. 105, art. 1.) 488 APPENDIX. 489 NOTE (e) p. 291 nam Respub. non potest per seipsam exercere *(e)o hbanc potestatem, ergo tenetur earn transferre in Obedire autem superiori debitum est secun- aliquem unum vel aliquos paucos; et hocmodo dum divinum ordinem rebus inditum ut osten- potestas principum in genere considerata, est sum est. (2. 2. quest. 104, art. 2.) etiam de jure naturae, et divino; nee posset genus humanum, etiamsi totum simul conveniNOT: Cf), p 291. rot, contrarium statuere, nimirum, ut nulli essent NOTE, p. 21.principes vel rectores. (Ib.) Respondeo dicendum quod fides Christi est justitice principium, et causa, secundum illud NOTE (1), p. 293. Rom. iii. "Justitia Dei per fidem Jesu Christi;" et ideo per fidem Christi non tollitur ordo jus- Quarto ota, in particulari singuls species titise sed magis firmatur. Ordo autem justitie rgiminis esse d jur gentim, non de jure requirit, utinferiores suis superioribus obediant: naturae; nam pendet a consensu multitudinis, aliter enim non posset humanarum rerum status constituere super se regem vel consules, vel conservari. Et ideo per fidem Christi non ex- alios magistratus, ut patet: et si causa legitima cusantur fideles, quin principibus secularibus adsit,potest multitud mutare regnum in aristoobedire teneantur. (2. 2. quest. 105, art. 6.) cratiam, aut democratiam, et e contrario ut Romae factum legimus. Quinto nota, ex dictis sequi, hanc potestatam NOTE (g), p. 291. in particulari esse quidem a Deo, sed mediante Certum est politicam potestatem a Deo esse a consilio, et electione humana, ut alia omnia,' quo non nisi res bonze et licitre procedunt, et qume ad jus gentium pertinent, jus enim gentium quod probat Aug. in toto fere 4 et 5 libr. de est quasi conclusio deducta ex jure naturme per qCivit. Dei. am sapientia Dei clamat, Pro d humanum discursum. Ex quo colliguntur due verb. viii.: Per me reges reinantm et infra: differentiae inter potestatem politicam, et eccle-.er me principes imperant. Et Daniel ii: siasticam: una ex parte subjecti, nam politica DPer me prinmipes imperant. Edt tDaniel.: est in multitudine, ecclesiastica in uno homine Dens coeli regnum et imperium dedit tibi, &c.; tanquam in subjecto immediate; altera ex et Daniel iv.: Cum bestiis ferisque erit habi- tanquam in subjecto immediate; altera ex parte efficientis, quod politica universe contatio tua, et fenuml, ut bos comedes, et rore coeli siderate est de jure diino, quodin particulari consiinfunderis: septem quoque tempora mutabuntur idlerata est de jure gentiuo,; ecclesin particulari omnisuper te, donec seias quod dominetur Excelsus bus, todis est de jure dievino, et immediate super regnum hominum, et cuicumque voluerit, a Deo. (eb.) det illud. (Bell. de Laicis, 1. iii. c. 6.)eo. NOTE (h), p. 291. NOTE (m), p. 294. Sed hicobservanda sunt aliqua. Primopoli- In hac re communis sententia videtur esse, icam potestatem in universum consideratam, hanc potestatem dar immediate a Deo ut aucson descendendo in particulari ad monarchiam, tore naturae, it ut homines quasi disponant Lristocratiam, vel democratiam immediate esse materiam et efficiant subjectum capax hujus a solo Deo; nam consequitur necessario natu- pot statis; Deus autem quasi triboat formam ram hominis, proinde esse ab illo, qui fecit danlo hanc potstatem. Cita a Cajet. Covar. naturam hominis;. preeterea heec potestas estVitor. y Soto. (De Leg. 1. m. c. 3.) de jure naturse, non enim pendet ex consensu hominum, nam velint, nolint, debent regi ab NOTE (n), p. 294. iliquo, nisi velint perire humanum genus, quod ecundo sequitur ex edictis, potestatem civiest contra naturae inclinationem. At jus naturae lem, quoties in uno homine, vel prinipe repeest jus divinum, jure igitur divino introducta ritur, legitimo, ac ordinario jure, a populo, et est gubernatio, et hoc videtur proprie velle communitate manasse, vel proxime vel remote, Apostolus, cum dicit Rom. xiii: Qui potestati lite hae, ut justa sit. (lb resistit, Dei ordinationi resistit. (lb.) a poe a cap. 4.) NOTE (i), p. 292. NOTE (o), p. 294. Secundo nota, bane potestatem immediate Defensio Fidei Catholicse et Apostolice adesse tanquam in subjecto, in tota multitudine, versus Anglicanae sectae errores, cum responnam haec potestas est de jure divino. At jus sione ad apologiam pro juramento fidelitatis et divinum nulli homini particulari dedit hane prefationem monitoriam serenissimi Jacobi potestatem, ergo dedit multitudini; preeterea Anglive Regis, Authore P. D. Francisco Suario sublato jure positivo, non est major ratio cur Gratanensi, e Societate Jesu, Sacrae Theologies ex multis eequalibus unus potius, quam alius in celebri Conimbricensi Academia Primario dominctur: igitur potestas totius est multitu- Professore, ad serenissimos totius Christiani dinis. Denique humana societas debet esse orbis Catholicos Reges ac Principes. perfecta respublica, ergo debet habere potesta- Lib. 3. De Primatu Summi Pontificis, cap. 2. tem se ipsam conservandi, et proinde puniendi Utrum Principatus politicus sit immediate a perturbatores pacis, &c. (Ib.) Deo, seu ex divina institutione...... In qua rex serenissimus non solum NOTE (k), p. 293. novo, et singulari modo opinatur, sed etiam acriter invehitur in Cardinalem Bellarminum, Tertio nota, hanc potestatem transferri a mul- eo quod asseruerit, non regibus authoritatem a jitudine in unum vel plures eodem jure naturae: Deo immediate, perinde ac pontificibus esne 62 MU$90~A?APPENDIX. concessam. Asserit ergo ipse, regem non a I tota hominum collectione, docet conceptisvernia populo, sed immediate a Deo suam potestatem S. Thomas 1. 2. qu. 90. art. 3 ad 2.'et qu. 97. habere; suamverosententiam quibusdam argu- art. 3 ad 3 quem sequuntur Dominicus Soto, mentis, et exemplis suadere conatur, quorum lib. 1. qu. 1. art. 3. Ledesma 2.Part. qu. 18. art. efficaciam in sequenti capite expendemus. 3. Covarruvias in pract. cap. 1. Ratio evidens Sed quamquam controversia hcecadjidei dog- est: quia omnes homines nascuntur liberi, mata directe nonpertineat (nihil enim ex divina respectu civilis imperii; ergo nemo in alterum Scriptura, aut Patrum traditione in illa defini- civili potestate potitur. Neque ergo in singutum ostendipotest), nihilominus diligenter tract- lis, neque in aliquo determinato potestas haec anda, et explicanda est. Tum quia potest esse reperitur. Consequitur ergo in tota hominulm occasio errandi in aliis dogmatibus; tur etiam collectione eamdem extare. Quae potestas non quia praedicta regis sententia, prout ab ipso confertur a Deo per aliquam actionem pecuasseritur et intenditur, nova et singularis est, et liarem a creatione distinctam; sed est veluti ad exaggerandam temporalem potestatem, et proprietas ipsam rectam rationem consequens, spiritualem extenuandam videtur inventa. Turn quatenus recta ratio praescribit ut homines in denique quia sententiam illustrissimi Bellar- unum moraliter congregati, expresso aut tacito mini antiquam, receptam, veram, ac xecessariam concensu modum dirigendae, conservandee, pro. esse censemus. pugnandaeque societatis praescribant. NOTE (p), P. 295. NOTE (r), p. 296. R. P. Hermanni Busembaum Societatis Jesu Hine infertur, potestatem residentem in prinTheologia Moralis, nune pluribus partibus aucta cipe, rege, vel in pluribus, aut optimatibus, aut a R. P. D. Alphonso de Ligorio Rectore majore plebeiis, ab ipsa communitate aut proxime, aut congregationis SS. Redemptoris; adjuncta in remote proficisci. Nam potestas haec. a Deo calce operis, prseter indicem rerum, et verborum immediate non est. Id enim nobis constare locupletissimum, perutiliinstructione ad praxim peculiari revelatione deberet; quemadmodum confessariorium Latine reddita. scimus, Saulem et Davidem electos a Deo Lib. 1, Tract 2. De legibus, cap. 1. De na- fuisse. Ab ipsa ergo communitate dimanet tura, et obligatione legis. Dub. 2. oportet. 104. Certum est dariin hominibus potestatem Falsam itaque reputamus opinionem illam ferendi leges; sed potestas haee quoad leges que asserit, potestatem hanc immediate et civiles a natura nemini competit, nisi commu- proxime a Deo conferri regi, principi, et cuique nitati hominum, et ab hac transfertur in unum, supremae potestati, excluso Reipublicse tacito, vel in.plures, a quibus communitas regatur. aut expresso consensu. Quamquam lis heec verborum potius quam rei est. Nam potestas NOTE (q), p. 295. hec a Deo auctore naturae est, quatenus disposuit, et ordinavit ut ipsa Respublica pro societatis Theologia Christiana Dogmatico-Moralis Auc- conservatione, et defensione, uni, aut pluritore P. F. Daniele Concina ordinis Prmedicato- bus supremam regiminis potestatem conferret. rum. Editio novissima, tomus sextus, de Jure Immo facta designatione imperantis, aut imnat. et gent., &c. Romee, 1768. perantium, potestas haec a Deo manare dicitur, Lib. 1. De Jure natur. et gent., &c. Disser- quatenus jure naturali, et divino tenetur, societatio 4, De leg. hum. C. 2. tas ipsa parere imperanti. Quoniam reipsa Sumome potestatis originem a Deo communi- Deus ordinavit ut per unum, aut per plures ter arcessunt scriptores omnes. Idque declara- hominum societas regatur. Et hac via omnia vit Salomon, Prov. viii. "Per me reges regnant, conciliantur placita: et oracula Scripturarum et legum conditores justa decernunt." Et pro- vero in sensu exponuntur. Qui resistit potesfecto quemadmodum inferiores principes a tati, Dei ordinationi resistit. Et iterum: Non summa majestate, ita summa majestas terrena a est potestas nisi a Deo: ad Rom. viii. Et Pesupremo Rege, Dominoque dominantium pen- trus Epist. 1, cap. ii. Subjecti igitur estote deat necesse est. Illud in disputationem vocant omni humanae creaturme propter Deum: sive tur theologi, tum jurisconsulti, sit ne a Deo Regi, &c. Item Joan. xix. Non haberes poproxirne, an tantum remote hlec potestas sum- testatem adversum me ullam, nisi tibi datum ma? Immediate a Deo haberi contendunt esset desuper. Quee, alia testimonia evincunt, plures, quod ab hominibus neque conjunctim, omnia a Deo, supremo rerum omniurn moderaneque sigillatim acceptis haberi possit. Omnes tore, disponi, et ordinari. At non propterea enim patres familias fequales sunt, solaque humana consilia, et operationes excluduntur; oeconomica in propias familias potestate fruun- ut sapienter interpretantur S. Angustinus tract. tur. Ergo civilem politicamque potestatem, 6, in Joan. et lib. 22. cont. Faustum, cap. 47, qua ipsi carent, conferre aliis nequeunt. Tum et S. Joannes Chrysostomus Homr. 23, in Epist. si potestas summa a communitate, tanquam ad Rom. a superiore, uni, aut pluribus collata esset, revocari ad nutum ejusdem communitatis posset; NOTE (), p. 296. cum superior pro arbitrio retractare communicatam potestatem valeat; quod in magnum so- Quinam possint ferre leges? Dico 1. Po. cietatis detrimentum recideret. testas legislativa competit communitati vel illi, Contra disputant alii, et quidem probabilins qui curam communitatis gerit. (Ibid. art. 3. 0.) ac verius, advertentes omnem quidem potesta- Prob. 1. Ex Isidoro L. 5.. Etymol. C. 10 et tem a Deo esse; sed addunt, non transferri in refertur C. Lex, Dist. 4. ubi dicit: Lex est con. particulares homines immediate, sed mediante stitutio populi, secundum quam majores natw societatis civilis consensu. Quod hmec potestas simul cum plebibus aliquid sanxerunt. (Ibid sit immediate, non in aliquo singulari, sed in in art. 1. 0.) APPENDIIL 491 Prob. 1. Ratione. (roid. 0.) Ilius est condere hanc potestatem conferat, ut contulit Moysi in legem, cujus est prospicere bono communi; populum Israel, et Christus SS. Pontifici in to. quia, ut dictum est, leges feruntur propter bo- tam Ecclesiam. num commune: atqui est communis, vel illius, Hanc potestatem legislativam in Christianos, cui curam communitatis habet, prospicere bono maxime jtlstos, non agnoscznt, Lutherani et Calcommuni: sicut enim bonum particulare est vinistce, secuti in hoc Valdenses, Wicleffum, et finis proportionatus agenti particulari, ita bo- Joan. Hus. damnatos in Cone. Constant. sess. 6. num commune est finis proportionatus commu- can. 15. Et quamnvis Joannes Hus earn agnosnitati, vel ejus vices gerenti; ergo. Confirma- ceret in principibus bonis, earn tamen denegatur: (Ibid. ad 2.) lex habet vim imperandi et bat inalis, pariter ideo damnatus in eodemn coercendi; atqui nemo privatus habet vim im- Concil. sess. 8. perandi multitudini et eam coercendi, sed sola ipsa multitudo, vel ejus Rector: Ergo. (Tract. NOTE (x), p. 297. de Legi. Art. 4.) Compendium Salmatic. authore R. P. F. R. NOTE (t), p. 296. Antonio a S. Joseph olim Lectore, priore ac examinatore Synodall in suo collegi0 Burgensi, Dices: Superioris est imperare et coercere; inatore Synod ali in uo olgio urgensi, atqui communitas non est sibi superior: Ergo Carmelitarum Discagenatoram Hispanica ConR. D. Min. Communitas, sub e(dem respectu Carmeitarui Discalceatorm Hispanica Conconsiderata, non est sibi superior, C. Sub di- gregatione. Romat, 1779. Superiorum perverso respectu, N. Potest itaque communitas ssu Tractat 3 De Lg, cap. 2. De considerari collective, per modum unius corpo- potestate ferendi leges. ris moralis, et sic considerata est superior sibi Punctum 1. De potestate legislativa civili. 115 To~~~~~Inq. 1. An detur in hominibus potestas conconsideratte distributive in singulis membris. Indi l eges ciletu. Afiirm. constat x illo Item potest considerari vel ut gerit vices Dei, a legrv viii er rege regnnt t le o quo omnis potestas legislativa descendit, juxta de legx s illud Proverb. Per me reges regnant, et legum ditores justa decernunt. Idem patet ex Apost., iud Pr h Per me reges regnant, at legum a d Rom. xiii. et tanquam de fide est definitum conditores justa decernunt; vel ut est guberna- in Coe. iCon. sess. ta at ue f ide est dfinitum bilis in ordine ad bonumr i commune: primo in Conc. Const. sess. 8, et ultima. Prob. ration. huiis in ordine ad bonum commune: primo modo considerata est superior et legislativa tquia ad conservationem boni communis requirimodo considerata est superior et legislativa; seu consid a est infrior tur publica potestas, qua communitas guberneseeundo mode considertata est inferior et legis secundo modo considet etifroet tur: nam ubi non est gubernator, corruet popususceptiva. lus, sed nequid gubernator communitatem nisi NOTE (at), p. 297. mediis legibus gubernare: ergo ceftum est dari N inh()miniin hominibus potestatem condendi leges, quibus Quod ut clarius percipiatur, observandum populus possit gubernari. Ita D. Th. lib. i. de est hominem inter animalia nasci masime des- regim. princip. c. 1 et 2. titutum pluribus tum corporis cum animme ne- Inq. 2. An potestas legislativa civilis convecessariis, pro quibus indiget aliorum consortio niat principi immediate a Deo? R. omnes asseet adjutorio, consequenter eum ipsapte natura runt dictam potestatem habere principes a Deo. nasci animal sociale: societas autem quam Verius tamen dicitur, non immediate sed nedinatura, naturalisve ratio dictat ipsinecessariam, ate populi consensu illam cos a Deo recipere. diu subsistere non potest, nisi aliqua publica Nam omnes homines sunt in natura mequales, potestate gubernetur; juxta illud Proverb. Ubi nec unus est superior, nec alius inferior ex nanon est gubernator, populus corruet. Ex quo tura, nulli enim dedit natura supra alterum sequitur, quod Deus, qui dedit talem naturam, potestatem, sed heac a Deo data est hominum simul ei dederit potestatem gubernativam et communitati, quoe judicans rectius fore guberlegislativam, qui enim dat formam, dat etiam nandum per unam vel per plures personas ea, qume hle forma necessario exigit. Verum, determinatas, suam transtulit potestatem in quia heie potestas gubernativa et legislativa unam, vel plures, a quibus regeretur, ut ait D. non potest exerceri a tota multitudine; difficile Th. 1. 2. q. 90. a. 3. ad. 2. namque foret, omnnes et singulos simul conve- Ex hoc naturali principio oritur discrimen nire toties quoties providendum est de necessa- regiminis civilis. Nam si Respublica transtulit riis bono communi, et de legibus ferendis; ideo omnem suam potestatem in unum solus, appelsolet multitudo transferre suum jus seu potesta- latur Regimen Monarchicum; si illam contulit tem gubernativam, vel in aliquos de populo ex Optimatibus populi, nuncupatur Regimen Arisomni conditione, et dicitur Democratia; vel in tocraticum; si vero populus, aut Respublica paucos optimates, et dicitur Aristocratia; vel in sibi retineat talem potestatem, dicitur Regimen unum tantum, sive pro se solo, sive pro succes- Democraticum. Habent igitur Principes resoribus jure hmereditario, et dicitur Monarchia. gendi potestatem a Deo, quia supposita elecEx quo sequitur, omnem potestatem esse a Deo, tione a Republica facta, Deus illam potestatem, ut dicit Apost. Rom. xiii. immediate quidem et quem in communitate erat, Principi confert. jure naturme in communitate, mediate autem Unde ipse nomine Dei regit, et gubernat, et qui tantum et jure humano in Regibus et aliis illi resistit, Dei ordinationi resistit, ut dicit Rectoribus: nisi Deus ipse immediate aliquibus Apost. loco supra laudato. [ NDE X, ABBON. a nio-la -ilr. em nen the 1dego of Augustin St.), 1hi description of paganism Pai is,.14. 89; his noLle senimnents on slavery, 111; reAbelard, accnunt of, 4s:1; error of M. Guizot markab!e passageJ from, on political forms, with regara to him,,02; aouctmenr provijg 390; on the name Catholic being given to this, 486. the true Church only, 422. Abuses, checked by the Church, 422. Author, declaration of, 419. Ademar, his chronicle, 24i. Authority in religion, tendency towards, in Adon, Archbishop of Vierne-his work on the 17th century, 61. universal history, 241. Avignon, Council of, its decree in favor of the Adrian (Pope) protects themarriages of slaves, truce of God, 181. 113; his doctrine on the right of slaveJ to Aymon (of Aquitaine) writes the history of marry, 113. the French, 241. Agde, Councils of, 103; ibid. decree against those who refused to be reconciled, 176. BARBARIANS, those who invaded the Roman Aix-la-Chapelle, Council of, enjoins bishops to Empire described, 122; their real condition, found hospitals to contain all the poor that 444; their laws and manners, 447. their revenues can support, 188. Barcelona, councillors of, their bold language Albigenses described, 252. to the king of Spain, 340; its trades-associaAlphonsus (of Ligouri), on power of making tions described by Capmany, 477. laws, 295. Bayle, dictionary of, described, 63; its effects, Amat (Don Felix), his false political theory, 63. 333; ibid. on resistance to government, 471. Bellarmine, doctrine of, on the divine law, 291; Ambrose (St.), conduct of towards the Em- on the civil power, 292, on the distinction peror Theodosius, 178; sells the sacred ves- between political and ecclesiastical power, sels to redeem slaves, 432. 293, vindication of, 294. Anabaptists, excesses committed by, in Ger- Benedict (St.), described, 238; his monastic inmany in the 16th century, 197. stitute, 238. Angers, Council of, its decree against acts of Beneficence, public, unknown to the ancients, violence, 176. 184; was the work of Christianity, 184; it Anselm (St.), writings of, 403; ibid. on St. required permanent institutions, 184; they Paul to the Romans, 459; extracts from, were conceived and founded by the Church, showing his way of viewing religious mat- 185; institutions of, founded by Catholicity, ters, 485; intellectual movement in the 185; they require the support of Christian Church within the limits of faith, 486; he charity, 189. anticipates Descartes' demonstration of the Bernard (St ), observations on, 409. existence of a God, 485. Beza, evidence of, against Protestantism, 423. Arabians, their civilization described, 237; Bible, why forbidden in the vulgar tongue in probability that they were indebted to the Spain, 215. eastern monasteries for much of their know- Bible Societies, effects of, 64. ledge, 237; the connexion between their Billuart, F., on the riehtof making laws, 296; science and that of antiquity may yet be on the origin of society and;he civil power, found, 237. 296. Arbogen, Council of, forbids church burial to Bishops, slaves of, set free at heir death by debe given to pirates, ravishers, &c., 182. cree of Council, 10S. Aristocracy in the 16th century, consisted of Bonald on the Esprit des Lois, 186; his docthe nobles and clergy, 348; differences be- trines, 283. tween them, 349; intermediate class between Boneuil, Council of, described, 106. the throne and the people, 349. Bossuet, his negotiations with Leibnitz to reAristotle, immoral doctrine of, 443; his views unite the Churches, 61; school of, 283: his ou public education, 443; his absurd inter- Universal History the first great work on ference of the State in domestic matters, the philosophy of history, 418. 443; his doctrines reformed by Christianity, Brentzen, testimony of, to the incredulity pre. 351. vailing among the early reformers, 429. Aries, Council of, its decree against feuds, 177. Brescia, Arnauld of, troubles excited by, 251. Armazh, Council of, 109; ibid. frees all the Bruis (Pierre de), his iconoclastic fanaticism; English slaves, 437. 251. Association, a favorite principle of Catholicity, Buchanan, his remark on the degradation of 189. women wherever Christianity docs not pre Atheism, tendency towards, in the 17th cen- vail, 136. tury, 61. Bull-fights, those of Spain discussed, 174 493 494 INDEX. Busenbaum on the power of making laws, 295. Chateaubriand, writings of, described, 71: - e. Bull (Ceena Domini) containing an excom- scribes Zachary as selling himself as a slave munication against those who levy excessive to buy the liberty of a husband for his wife taxes, 360. and children, 104; extract from, on the effects of Catholicity and Protestantism, 415. CIESAR (J.) on the manners of the Germans Chivalry, its relations with women, 150; did and Britons, 153. not elevate them, but found them elevated Calmet, on St. Paul to the Romans, 461. by Christianity, 151. Calvin, intolerance of, 421; his vulgar abuse, Christ, all his miracles beneficent, 184; his 421; evidence of, in favor of the Pope, 423. whole life spent in doing good, 184. Calvinism, as connected with democracy, 355. Christians, the early, their constancy in marCapmany on the trades-corporations of Barce- tyrdor, 224; they seek asylums for retire lona, 477. ment and prayer in the deserts, 224. Carranza, trial of, 212; its duration, 212; car- Christianity, effects of, on society, 67; effects ried to Rome, 212; his dying declaration, produced by its appearance, 88; opposes 212; conduct of Philip II. towards him, 213; slavery, 102; could not endure the savage causes of his trial, 213; nature of his writ- heroism of the Romans, 104; development ings, 214; his reason why the Scriptures in of the moral life by means of, 134; was unthe vulgar tongue were forbidden in Spain, known to the ancients, 134; the effects which 215 would have followed from the loss of its inCassian, his account of the origin of religious fluence on Europe, 134; ideas of some modinstitutions, 223. ern philosophers with regard to it, 156; how Cathari, the, described, 251. it is embodied in Catholicity, 156; its proCatholicity, its doctrines always the same, 65; gress in the early ages described, 230; its its past services to society, and what may effects on the invading barbarians, 235. be expected from it for the future, 73; its Church, the Catholic, services of, to society, in progress in several countries of Europe, 74; combating the fatalist doctrines of the Renot opposed to the true spirit of liberty, 80; formation, 68; her opposition to slavery, 102; its effects on European civilization, 80; was she protects the freedom of newly emancistrong in the west and weak in the east, 81; pated slaves, 103; consecrates manumission importance of the unity produced by it for by having it performed in the churches, 103; the safety of Europe amid perils, S; degra- protects slaves recommended to her by will, ded condition of society when it appeared, 103; allows her sacred vessels to be, sold to 90; not opposed to the feeling of individual- redeem slaves, 104; gives letters of recomity, but promotes it, 131; the elevation of mendation to emancipated slaves, 105; woman due to it alone, 135, 15;5; places wo- causes tending to promote slavery with men n an equality with men, 135; mistake which she had to contend, 105; she makes of its opponents, 149; its institutions falsely a law enabling those who had been comassailed by Protestants and philosophers, pelled to sell themselves as slaves to recover 147; its exertion in favor of beneficence im- their liberty by paying back the price, 106; peded by Protestantism, which compelled it she allows her ministers to give their liberty to stand on its defence, 188; unfairly treated to slaves belonging to her, while she forbids with regard to tolerance, 190; its doctrine other property to be alienated, 103; sumwith respect to errors of the mind, 200; was mary of her measures for the abolition of the work of God, 256; its fertility in re- slavery,'114-(see Councils); its abolition sources, 257; its charity, 257; its true doc- due to her alone, 114; reforms marriage, trines with regard to the civil power, 323 136; preserves its sanctity, 137; great evils its relations with the people, 353; its rela- thereby prevented, 137; her unity in doctions with liberty, 357; its effects on the de- trines and fixity in conduct not inconsistent velopmcnt of the intellect, 392; effects of its with progress, 145; her struggles with the principle of submission to authority, 393; corrupted Romans and savae barbarians effects of the same on the sciences, 393; an- 176; decrees of her Councils against anicient and modern philosophy compared with mosities, 176; her persevering efforts, 177 it, 395; its morality, 397; its revealed dog- treats kings and great men as severely as ras, 397; is not opposed to true philosophy, the lowly, 177; her boldness in checking the 397; compared with Protestantism with re- crimes of kings, 178; her interference in spect tolearning, universities, &c., 412; its civil affairs of old justified by the circumunity and concert, 423; its services against stances of the times, 182; her Councils proslavery.-(See Slavery.) tect the weak-viz. clergy, monks, women, Celchite, Council of, 109. merchants and pilgrims-against the stron-, Celibacy, influence of that of the clergy in 182; her exertions in favor of the vanquishpreventing an hereditary succession, accord- ed in war, 183; she preserves unity of faith, ing to Guizot, 351; what would have hap- and founds institutions for doing good, 185; pened without it, 352. what she would have done for the cure of Censors, among the ancients, they took the pauperism if the Reformation had not plunplace of religious authority, 161. ged Europe into revolutions and reactions, Chalons, Council of, 108. 188; encourages the aristocracy' of talent, Chalons-sur-Saone, Council of, excommuni- 361; service which she did to the human cates those who fight within the precincts of mind by opposing the spirit of subtlety of churches, 176. the innovators, 407; her interference in the Chanoinesses, enjoined by the Council of Aix management of hospitals, 449. to keep an hospital for poor women, 188. Churches, the Protestant, only-the instruments Charity, its effects on toleration, 192. of the civil power, 186. ('harles V., why released from his oath by the Cicero, on the necessity of religion to the State, Pope, 210 316. INDEX. 495 Civilization, that of Europe during the 16th general rule, that alienations made by bish centur y not owing to Prot stantismln, 82; cha- ops who leave nothing of their own must be racteristics Of that of lmodern fturope de- restored, 436; ordain that when a bishop scribed, 115; compared with ancient and dies, all his slaves shall be set at liberty, and modern non-Christian civilization, 116; its that at the funeral each bishop or abbot may superiority owing, to Catholicity, 117; may set three slaves free, giving them three solidi be reduced to three elements-the individual, each, 436; free all the English slaves in Irethe family, and society, 117; its universal land, 437; forbid slaves of the Church to be progress impeded. and unity broken; by exchanged for others, 437; grant liberty to Protestantism, 260. slaves who wish to embrace the monastic Clement, St. (Pope), passage from, on Chris- life, with proper precautions to prevent tians selling themselves as slaves to redeem abuses, 437; check the abuse of ordaining their brethren, 104. slaves without the consent of their masters, Clergy, the effects on society of their power and 437; allow parish priests to select some cleinfluence, 175; fatal effects of the diminu- rics fiom the slaves of thle Church, 438; altion of their political influence in the 16th low slaves to be ordained, having been first century, 37(); advantages which might have freed, 438. resulted from it to popular institutions, 373; Crusades vindicated, 242. their relations with all the powers and class- Cyprian (St.), on the redemption of captives, es of society, 373. 432. Clermont, Council of, its decree in favor of the truce of God, 181. DE MAISTRE on the word "catholic," 422; on Coblentz, Council of, 106. general Councils, 480; compares the conConcina (P.), on the origin of power, 295; duct of the Popes with that of other rulers, how it exists in governments, 296. 434. Conduct, firmness of, its powerfuleffects in the Democrats, difference between ancient and world, 145. modern, 130. Conscience, the public, described, 157; that of Democracy, its alliance with kings against Europe contrasted with that of ancient times, the aristocracy, 303; notion formed of, in 159; how influenced by the Church, 160; the 16th century, 350; two kinds of,364; both illustrated by the story of Scipio, 165; their progress in the history of Europe, 365; the former was formed by Catholicity alone, their characters, 366; their causes and ef166. fects, 366; historical facts with regard to, in Conscience, the individual, described, 158. France, England, Sweden, Denmark, and Constance, Council of, its doctrine on the mur- Germany, 367. der of kings, 336. Descartes, his demonstration of the existence Cornelius a Lapide, on St. Paul to the Ro- of God anticipated by St. Anselln, 486. mrans, 460. Divorce, consequences of the facility of, in Cortes, severe measures of that of Toledo Germany. according to M. de Staif, 139. against the Jews, 205; decline of, in Spain, Divines, spirit of the writingrs of the old Cath. 331. lie, compared with that of modern writers, Cottereaux, excesses of, 252. 238. Councils of the Church, their influence on po- Doctrines, their effects on society, 311; those litical laws and customs, 360; canons of, prevalent in the 16th century with regard to which improve the condition of slaves, 430; democracy, 350; those prevalent in political check all attempts against the liberty of the matters in Europe before the appearance of enfranchised slaves of the Church, or who Protestantism compared with those of the had been recommended to her by will, 431; school of the 18th century and those of mo undertake that the Church will defend the dern publicists, 374. liberty and property of the freed who have Dominicans, their exertions in favor of the been recommended to her, 43,1; make the native Americans, as stated by Robertson, redemption of captives the first care of the 441. Church, and give their interests precedence over her own, 432; excommunicate those EAST, the, injury caused there by breaking who attempt to reduce men into slavery, unity in religion, 235. 433; declare those who make Christians Elvira, Council of, its decree in favor of slaves, slaves to be guilty of homicide, 434; ordain 100.' that those who have sold themselves as slaves England, policy of, towards Spain, 76. shall recover their liberty by repaying the Eon, his fanatical delusion, 251. price, 434; protect the slaves belonging to Epaone, Council of, 100. Jews, 434; provide means for their becom- Erigena, account of, 400. ing free, 434; forbid Jews to acquire new Errors, those of the mind not always innoChristian slaves, 435; ordain that if a mas- cent, 200. ter gives meat to a slave on a fasting day, Error described, 70. the latter becomes free, 435; forbid Jews to Europe, characteristics of her civilization, 116; hold Christian slaves at all, 435; forbid condition of, in the 13th century, 245 etseq.; Christian slaves to be sold to Jews or pa- singular contrasts therein, 246; struggle begans, 435; or to be sold out of the kingdom tween barbarism and Christianity there, 247; of Clovis, 436; severely condemn clerics instances of great and good principles some who sell their slaves to Jews, 436; command times abused in practice, 247; barbarism bishops to respect the liberty of those freed therein improved by religion, and religion by their predecessors, 436; they mention the disfigured by barbarism, 248; effects of the power given to bishops to free deserving crusades, 249; increasing power of the comslaves, and fix the sum which they may give monalty, 249; decline of the feudal system, them to live on, 436; exempt them from the 249; power of great ideas, 250; critical 496 INDEX. epochs, 250; great agitation prevailing, and son why Christians liberated their slaveg, horrible doctrines spread, among the people 436. at that time, 250-(see TanchAme, Eon, Ca- Gregory III. (Pope), on selling slaves to the thari, Vaudois, Albigenses); what she would pagans for sacrifice, 435. have done for civilization if she had not been Gregory IX. (Pope), his decretals on slavery, impeded by Protestantism, 261; her condi- 109; against the hereditary succession of the tion when it appeared, 261; great increase clergy, 352. of power and development of mind, 262; Gregory XVI. (Pope), his apostolic letters divisions occasioned by it, 262; the nations against the slave trade, 438. thereof require religious institutions for or- Grotius, his servile doctrine on the civil power ganizing beneficence and education on a 323; his evidence in favor of Catholicity large scale, 277; state of, at the end of the 424. 15th century, 344; social movement at that Gruet, his incredulity and execution, 429. time, 344; its causes, 344; its effects and ob- Guibert, historical labors of, 241. ject, 345; development of the industrial Guizot, on the effects of the Church upon slaveclasses there, 354; this took place under the ry, 113; his doctrine of the personal indeinfluence of Catholicity alone, 385; picture pendence of individuals among the barbaof, from the 11th century to the 14th, 382; rians stated and discussed, 119; true thereligion and the human mind there,.404; ory thereon, 121; incoherence of his own intellectual condition of the nations of mo- doctrines, 124; cause of his error, 125; his dern, distinguished from that of those of an- acknowledgment with regard to the refortiquity, 405; causes which have accelerated mation and liberty, 343; extract from, shewit among the former, 406. ing that the clergy were not a caste, 351; an Eximeno, letter of, on the sciences, 425. opinion of, refuted, 399; extract from, shew ingz the immense superiority of the Church FACTS, consummated, how they are to be to the barbarians in legislation, 447; docutreated, 333. ments shewing his error with respect to Faith, unity of, not adverse to political liberty, Abelard, 486. 388. Forms, political, their value, 357. HACKET, fanaticism of, 427. Francis I. (of France), his opinion on the ne- Harlem, Mathias, mad fanaticism of, 426. cessity of expelling the Moors from Spain, Heresy, held a sin by the Catholic Church, 200. 210. Heretics, characteristics of those of the early Francis, St. (de Sales), his list of titles given ages, 425. to the Popes, 423. Herman, preaches the murder of all priesta Franks, their custom of going armed to church and magistrates, 426. forbidden by Councils, 176. Hermandad, charter of, between the kingdoms Free-will, its denial discarded by Protestants of Leon and Castile, for the preservation of themselves, 68; its effects, 68; its noble re- their liberties, 475. suits, 134; supported by Catholicity against History, difficulties in its study, 248; necessithe Reformation, 135. ty of taking into account times and circumstances of events therein, 248. GAMBLING, passion of, described, 142. Hobbes, his false theory of society, 304; his Games, public, those of the Romans prohi- servile doctrine, 323. bited by the Christian Church, 175. Honor, principle of, in monarchies, according Gerbet (I'Abbd), his excellent refutation of to Montesquieu, 161. Lammenais' doctrines, 338. Horace, on the origin of society, 462. Germans, manners of the ancient, described Hospitals, destroyed by Henry VII. in Engby Tacitus, 152; why embellished by him, land, 185; Catholic bishops the protectors 153; are but little known to us, 154; their and inspectors of, 187; laws made respecting struggles with the Romans, 154. them by the Church, 187; attached to monGibbon, testimony of, to the merits of Bossuet's asteries and colleges in the middle ages, 449; History of the Variations, 421. superintended by the bishops, 449; their Gilles (St.), Council of, its decree in favor of property protected by being considered as the truce of God, 179. belonging to the Church, 449. Gironne, Council of, in favor of the truce of Hugh of St. Victor, historical labors of, 241. God, 18(). Humility, its effects with regard to toleration. Glaber (Monk), of Cluny, his history of 193. France, 241. Gotti (Cardinal), doctrines of, on the origin IDEAS, irreligious ones cannot be confined of power, 295. theory, but enter on the field of practice, 70; Gouget (l'Abb6), on Catholic Hebrew studies, destroy themselves, 71; power of, 169; they 413. are divided into those that flatter the pasGovernment, three principles of-monarchy, sions, and those that check them, 170; the aristocracy, and democracy, 344. require an institution to preserve and en Governments, revolutionary ones are cruel in force them, 170; how they became corrupted self-defence, not being based on right, 128; among mankind before Christianity, 170; right of resistance to de facto ones, 330; how effected by the press, 171; their natural falsehood of the theory which imposes the progress, 171; their rapid succession in moobligation of obeying them merely as such, dern times, 171. 331; difficulties on this point explained, 332. Impiety allies itself with liberty or despotism Grace, effects of the Catholic doctrine of, 234. to suit its purpose, 388. Gratian, merit of his literary labors, 241. Incredulity in Europe the fruit of ProtesGregory (Pope), passage from, 108; frees two tantism, 60; spirit of, has lost much of its slaves of the Roman Church, 436; his rea- strength, 70. IN D EX. 497 Independence, personal, feeling' of; existed down to the present time, 196; recent inamong the Greeks and Romans, 124. stances of it, 196; case of France examined, ndifference, religious, in Europe, the fruit of 197; doctrine which condemns all intolerProtestantism, 60. ance with regard to doctrines and actions Individual, the, how absorbed by the'state discussed and refuted, 198; consequences among-the ancients, 127; fatal effects of the which would flow from it, 198; would procomplete annihilation of the feelings of re- duce impunity for crimes, 198; civil and spect for, in society, 129; witnessecd among religious, distinguished, 450; mistaken by nations not Christians, 129. Rousseau, 450; its existence in ancient and Individuals, how the freedom of, was fettered modern times held by some Protestants, 451. among the ancient republics, 130; every Irreligion, spirit of, has lost much of its thing ruled by the state, 130. strength, 70. Inquisition, the, misrepresentations with re- Isabella, part taken by, in the establishment gard to that of Spain, 203; its duration may of the Inquisition in Spain, 205. be divided into three periods, 205; appeals from it to Rome, 207; indulgence of the lat- JANSENISTS, the, described, 62. ter, 208; interference of the. Popes to soft- Jerome, St., on the name Catholic not being en the rigours of, 208; mildness of that of given to heretics, 422. Rome, 208; no case of capital sentence pro- Jesuits, importance of, in the history of civilnounced by it, 208; rigours of that of Spain ization, 268; their eminent services, 269; in the time of Philip II. caused by the Pro- error and contradiction of M. Guizot in testants themselves, 214; compels a preacher their regard, 270; false charges against, to retract who, in the presence of Philip II., 271. had maintained that kinds have absolute Jews, the slaves of, protected by decrees of power over their subjects, 218; became mild- Councils, 107; struggle between truth and er with the spirit of the age, 218; remarks error among, 170; how~the truth was prethereon, 452.; appellants to Rome from, for- served, 170; their avarice, 206; popular habidden to return to'Spain under pain of tred against, 206; atrocities charged against death by pragmatic sanction of Ferdinand them by the people, 207; pragmatic sanction and Isabella, 454; how affected by the poll- of Ferdinand and Isabella with regard to, cy of the Spanish kings, 455; the latter ear- 454; law of Philip II. against, 455. nestly endeavoured to have the judgment in John de Ste. Marie, extracts from, on ChrisSpain made final, without appeal, which the tian politics, 463. Popes refused, 455; affected impartiality of Jomtob, Nathaniel, his work called The Inquiwriters with regard to it, 455. See Perez, sition Unveiled, 456; his prejudice and vulPuigblanch, Villanueva, Llorente, and Jomtob. gar abuse, 456. Institutions, religious, opposed by Protestant- Judaisers pursued by the Inquisition, 209. ism and philosophers, 219; their importance Justin, on martyrdom, 132; his Apology, 286. and connexion with religion herself, 221; Justinian gives bishops the control of hospihave survived the attempts made to destroy tals, 450. them, 221; their nature described, 222; their object, 222; are perfectly conformable to the KINGS, inviolability of, 337; greatest increase spirit of the Christian religion, 223; their of the power of, in Europe, dates from the commencement, according to Cassian, 223; appearance of Protestantism, 363. have always existed in the Church from the Knowledge, state of, when Christianity aptime of Constantine, 223; conduct of the peared, 85; sterility of, in creating social Popes towards them, 224; their accordance institutions, 85. with the Gospel precepts, 225; their effects on the human mind, 226; their services and LABORERS, protected by the Council of Rheims, necessity, 227; their necessity for the salva- 182. tion of society, 275; not inconsistent with Lacordaire (1'Abb6) on the Spanish Inquisithe improvements of modern times, 280; tion, 210. historical view of them, 458; coup d'ceil at Lamennais (l'Abb6), his attempt to ally their origin and development, 458-9. Catholicity with extreme democracy, 131; Institutions, free, injure. by Protestantism, his doctrines on government compared with 363. those of St. Thomas, 338. Institutions, their study, A453; necessity of un- Las Casas, exertions of, in favor of the native derstarding the tirne: when they existed, Americans related by Robertson, 442. 248. Lateran, general Council of, confims the truce Intellect, the, its dcvelcpment, how affeeted of God, 181; eleventh general Council of, by Catholicity, 39'2; influence thereof upon, forbids the maltreatment of monks, clergy, historically eyamined, 398; its relations pilgrims, merchants, peasants, and the sipwith reliz:on., 404; its development among wrecked, 182. the nations of Europe different from that of Law, the divine, false interpretation of, 284; those of antiquity, 405; causes that have St. John Chrysostom on, 285; according to hastened Its development in Europe, 405; Bellarmine, 291.-See St. Thomas, Suarez, origin of the spirit of subtlety, 406; service Gotti, Busenbaum, Liutori, Billuart, and the rendered' to it by the Church in opposing the Compendium Salmaticense. subtle'ies of the innovators, 408; its progress Law.-See St. Thomas. from the eleventh century to our times, 412; League, the Hanseatic, described, 354. diffe-er.t phases, 412. Legislation, that of Rome described, 86; was Intolerance, that of some irreligious men, 194; probably influenced by Christianity, 86. of the Romans, 196; of the pagan emperors, Leibnitz, his negotiations with Bossuet to re 196; has continued from the establishment unite the Churches, 61; his theological system of Christianity by the state, in various forms, contains the chief dogmas of Catholicity, 424. 63 49S N DE X. Lepers, ordered to be maintained at the ex- Melancthon, his complaints against the other pense of the Church, 187. Reformers, 421; superstitions.of, 426. Lerida, Council of, excludes those at variance Merchants protected by Councils, 182. from the body and blood of Christ, 176; de- Merida, Council of, 100. crees seven years' penance against infanti- Missions, their unity broken by Protestantism cide, 184. 260; injury thereby done to them, 263; what Leyden, John of, his excesses at Munster, they might have effected had it not appeared, 426. 263; what united efforts effected in earlier Liberty, a word ill understood, 79; examples times, 264; need of, on a large scale, for the of, 79; how limited, 79; Catholicity favora- conversion of the heathen, 265; zeal dis ble to its true spirit, 80; true nature of, 228; played by the Church in the promotion oi, according to Catholic doctors, 311; political in latter times, 266; powerful means for profreedom owes nothing to Protestantism, 352'; moting at the command of Rome before Catholicity favorable to it, 352; why it has unity was broken, 266. fallen into bad repute with some, 362; con- Monarchy, why hereditary is preferable, 143; sidered in relation to religious intolerance, idea formed of, in the sixteenth century 382; cannot subsist without morality, 389; 346; application thereof, 347; in what it difremarkable passage from Augustin on the fered from despotism, 347; what it was in subject, 390. the sixteenth century, 347; its relations with Lillebonne, Council of, enforces the truce of the Church, 348; when necessary in Europe, God, 180. 356; different character of, in Europe and Llandaff, Council of, 177. Asia, 357; passage from De Maistre on, 358; Llorente, his History of the Inquisition, 457; institutions for limiting it, 358; it acquired his attempt to introduce schism and heresy strength in the sixteenth century, 361; preinto Spain, 457; his misrepresentation, 457; vailed over free institutions, 362; causes of burns a portion of the documents belonging this, 370. to the Inquisition of Madrid, 457. Monasteries, those in the east established in London, Council of 106. imitation of the solitaries, 235; causes of Louis of Bavaria, the doctrine that the impe- their decline, 235; services they might have rial power comes immediately from God rendered to literature, 236; what they did maintained by the princes of the empire in for knowledge, 236; those of the west estab his time, 462. lished, 238; their effects, 238; property renLove, passion of, its effects, 143; how treated dered sacred, 239; their property, 239; their by Catholicity and Protestantism, 144; ad- claims thereto, 239; their improvements, vantages of the course pursued by the for- 240; encouragement given to the country mer, 145. life, 240; their services to Germany, France, Luther, his opinion on polygamy, 138; effects Spain, and England, 240; great men they which his doctrines would have had, had produced, 240; their services to science and they been proclaimed sooner, 138; his intol- letters, 240; their civilizing effects, 242; new erance' towards the Jews, 209; specimens forms assumed by them in the twelfth and of his violence, grossness, and intolerance, thirteenth centuries, 242; their objects, 243; 421; his evidence against Catholicity, 423; benefits they conferred on mankind, 243. his.interview with the Devil, 425; infidel Monks, protected by Councils, 180. passages from his wr:tings, 428. Monogamy not owin- to climate, 138. Lyons, Council of, 105; Council of, see Lepers; Montaigne on the Reformation, 61; his infidel poor men of, described, 251. sentiments changed at his death, 429. Montanus, Arias, employed by Philip II. to MACON, Councils of, 104. collect books and MSS., 218. Manichees, unusual severities exercised to- Montesquieu on the principle of honor in mowards, 204; description of, 252. narchies, 162; that of virtue in republics, Manners, gentleness of, one of the character- 161; he is bound by his theory, 165; on the istics of European civilization, 172; wherein destruction of monasteries and hospitals in it consists, 172; exists in advanced societies, England by Henry VIII., 185; his doctrine 172; not found in young nations, 172; did with regard to the latter, 186. not exist among the Greeks and Romans, Montpellier, Council of, its decrees to secure 173; causes of this, 173; their excessive cor peace, 181. ruption among the ancients, 445. Moors, the, dread of their power in Spain, 205; Mariana, his popular doctrines, 312; on the papal bull in favor of, 209; law of Philip liberties of Spain, 481. III., expelling them, 454. Marquez, P., on the disputes between rulers and their subjects, 482; on the levying of NAPOLEON and the Spanish nation, 331; taxes, and the right of rulers over the pro- Narbonne, Council of, its decree in favor of perty of their subjects, 483. the truce of God, 179. Marriage, doctrines of Catholicity and Protes- Nationality, importance of, 76. tantism with regard to, compared, 136; im- Nicholas, a fanatic who taught that it was good portance of guarding the sanctity of, 139; to continue in sin that grace might the more not admitted as a sacrament by Protestant- abound, 427. ism, 139; different conduct of Catholicity Nuns, protected by the Council of Rouen, 181 and Protestantism with regard to, 140. Martyrs, heroism of the Christian, 132. OBEDIENCE, motives of, founded on the will of Matha, John of, one of the founders of the Or- God, 97. der of the most holy Trinity for the Redemp- Olive trees, why protected by the Council of tion of Captives, 259. Narbonne, 180. Mathemratics,obscurity of their first principles, Opinions, the rapid succession of, in moderr 425. times, 171. INDEX. 499 Opinion, public, influence of, on morals, 163. their intolerance compared with the tolerOrange, Council of, its decree in favor of ance of Protestantism, 208; their temporal slaves, 103. powers, 340; doctrines of theologians with Orders, the religious-military described, 242; regard to them in case they should fall into the mendicant ditto, 252; the necessity for heresy, 342; nature, origin, and effects ot the latter, 253; their popular nature, 254; their temporal power, 386; list of titles given their influence, 254; were the work of God, to, in ancient times, 423. 254; their relations with the Pontiffs, 256; Power, origin of, 284; the paternal, considered those for the redemption of captives, 257; with regard to the civil, 286; the latter, ac, visions inspiring them, 259; their founders, cording to Bellarlmine, resides immediately 259. in the people, 292; divine origin of, 298; Orleans, Council of, its decree in favor of slaves, violence of, when illegitimate, 303; mediate 100, 103, 107; forbids any one to be armed and immediate transmission of, 305.; this disat church, 176; protects hospitals, 187; the tinction important in some respects and unpoor and prisoners, 187. important in others, 306; why Catholic diOxford, Council of, its decree against robbers, vines have so zealously supported the mediate, 182. 308; faculties of the civil, 317; calumnies of the opponents of the Church on this point, PACTS, 298. 317; resistance to the civil, 324; comparison Paganism described by St. Augustin, 89. between Catholicity and Protestantism on Palafox, on the duties of kings, princes, and this point, 327; vain timidity of some minds magistrates, 321; on taxes and tyranny, 483. on this point, 324; obedience to the civil, Palentia, Council of, protects the defenceless, taught by Catholicity when legitimate, 325; ~182. civil distinguished from spiritual, 326; conPapin, evidence of, in favor of Catholicity, 424. duct of Catholicity and Protestantisrn with Paris, trades-union of, 354. respect to the separation of the. two, 326; the Passions, the, differently treated by Catholici- independence of the spiritual, a guarantee ty and by Protestantism, 140; why so active for the liberty of the people, 326; doctrines irn times of public disturbance, 143. of St. Thomas on obedience to the civil, 328; Patrick, (St.), Council of, 105. doctrines of St. Thomas, Bellarmine, Suarez, Paul, (St.), his Epistle to the Romans, 459. -&c. on resistance to the civil, in extreme Peasants.-See Lateran. cases, 338. Penance, efficacy of the sacrament of, 167. Preaching, that of Protestantism without ataPerez, on the condemnation of a preacher for thority, 167.-See Protestantism. absolutist doctrines by the Inquisition of Prebendaries, bound to give a tenth of thei: Spain, 455. fruits to an hospital, 188. Peter, (St.), of Arbues, his murder by the Jews Press, the effects of, on opinions, 171. not a proof of the unpopularity of the Inqui- Prisoners, exertions of the Church in favor of, sition, 207; tumult occasioned thereby, 207. 187. Peter, (St.), Nolasque, founds the Order of Protestantism, present condition of, 64; atMercy for the Redemption of Captives, 259. tempts to preserve itself by violating its funPhilanthropy, inadequate for works of benefi- damental principle, 64; causes of its conticence without Christian Charity, 189. nuance, 64; has almost entirely disappeared Philosophers, the irreligions of the last century as a fixed creed, but remains as a body of preferred pagan to Christian institutions, sects, 65; its positive doctrines repugnant to 161. the instinct of civilization, 63; its essential Philosophy, schools of, can destroy but not principle one of destruction, 69; can boast create, 171. only of its ruins, 69; was the work of human Philip II. of Spain did not institute the Inqui- passions, and not of God, 69; effects which sition, but continued it, 210; why so much even its partial introduction into Spain would attacked by Protestants, 210; probability produce, 74, 76, 78; advantages of the practhat the attempts made to introduce Protes- tice of preaching preserved by, 90, 166; its tantism into Spain in his time would suc- preaching is without authority, 167; its docceed, owing to the circumstances of the trine with respect to errors of the mind, 199; times, 211; his conduct to Carranza, 213; effects which its introductien into Spain his services to Catholicity, 215; general feel- would have produced, 216; would have broing in his reign with regard to cruel punish- ken the unity of the Spanish monarchy, 216; ments very different from the present, 217; is opposed to vows and celibacy, 219; its aphis patronage of literature, 218; his letter to pearance, 262; its effects in breaking the Arias Montanus, 456.-See Inquisition. unity of European civilization, 262; divided Pilgrims protected by Councils, 181. the missionaries among themselves, 263; disPitt, anecdote of, 76.. astrous effects of, 267; exalts the temporal Pius II. (Pope), his apostolic letters against power at the expense of the spiritual, 308; slavery, 439. its relations with liberty, 343; real state of Pius VII. (Pope), interposes to abolish the slave the case on this point, 344; its origin aristotrade, 441. cratic, 355; not favorable to the poor, 355; Plato, immoral doctrines of, 422. has contributed to destroy free institutions, Polygamy, not the effect of climate, 138. 363; fearful state of Europe after it appeared, Poor, the, regulations of Councils in favor of, 369; political doctrines prevailing in Europe 187. before its appearance compared with those Popes, the, services they rendered to society of modern publicists and the school of the by preserving the sanctity of marriage, 137; eighteenth century, 374; has prevented thle support the truce of God, 1S1; their attempts homogeneity of European civilization, 375 to mitigate the rigour of the Spanish Inqui- historical proofs, 376; compared with Catho sition, 208; appoint judges of appeal, 208; licity with regard to learning, criticism, the 500 I NDEX. learned languages, the foundation of univer- Rome, and in the eastern countries, 91 sities, the progress of literature and the arts, opinions of Plato and Aristotle regaruing mysticism, high philosophy, metaphysics, them, 91; their treatment, 91; dangers froml morals, religious philosophy, and the philo- their numbers, 91; their rebellions, 92; their sophy of history, 412; evidences against, immediate emancipation impracticable, 93; from Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Beza, the Church did all that could be done in theit Grotius, Papin, Puffendorf, and Leibnitz, favor, 94; difficulties she had to conten( 423; its superstition and fanaticism, 425; with in their emancipation, 94: conduct, debad faith of its founders, 428; passages prov- signs, and tendencies of the Church favoraing this, 428; progress of infidelity soon ble to them, 94; their natural inferiority tr after its appearance proved from Luther, freemen proclaimed by the heathen philoso. Brentzen, Gruet, and Montaigne, 428. phers, 95; their natural equality with therr Puffendorf, his false theory of society, 304; inculcated by the Scriptures and the Church evidence of, against Protestantism, 423. 97; motives for their obedience, 97; their illPuigblanch.-See Jomtob. trcatment, 98; spirit of hatred and revolts Punishments, right of inflicting capital, deriv- thereby caused, 98; St. Paul's instructions ed from God, 300; cannot come from pacts, to them, 98; power of life and death possess300; mildness of, among barbarian nations ed over them by their masters, and cruelties not a proof of civilization but of indifference exercised, 99; scene from Tacitus, 99; St. to crime, 447; immense superiority of the Paul intercedes for one of then, 100; illlegislation of the Church with respect to, ac- treatment of them forbidden by Councils of cording to M. Guizot, 447. the Church, 100; she substitutes public trial for private vengeance in their regard, 101; REGULUS, virtue bordering on ferocity, 104. the clergy forbidden to mutilate them, 101; Religion, always existed in some shape among she condemns to penance those who put them the greater part of mankind, 66; power of, to death of their own authority, 101; she in Spain, 76; condition of, when Christianity protects those newly emancipated, 103; those appeared, 84; atrocities committed in the of the Church not allowed to be sold or exname of, by Catholics and Protestants, 204; changed, 109; those who embrace the monimportance of, to the civil power, 311; cor- astic state are freed by decree of the Council ruption of, among the ancients, 445. of Rome, 109; abuse thereof, 109; were raisRevolutions, those of modern times, 389; dif- ed to the priesthood, but not until they had ference between that of the United States of been freed, 110; prevalence of the abuse of America and that of France, 389. ordaining slaves without the consent of their Rheims, Councils of, 104; commands that the masters, 110; the Church protects their marclergy, monks, women, travellers, laborers, riages, and forbids them to be dissolved by and vine-dressers shall be respected during their rmasters, 113.-See Councils. war, 182; protects the poor, 187. Slavery, the offspring' of sin; 112. Robertson.-See Dominicans and Las Casas. Society, will always be either religiotn or su Romans, the, their savage heroism not tolerat- perstitious, 67; modern, described, 72; its ed by the mild spirit of Christianity, 104; progress, 82; condition of, when Christianity futile attempts made to imitate then, 128; appeared, 84; present state of, 274; admintheir manners effeminate without being gen- istration alone not adequate to its wants; tie, 173. principle of charity required, 276; physical Rome, legislation of, 86; how affected by means of restraininoc the. masses of, 278; Christianity, 86; vice of her political organ- moral means required, 280; origin of, acization, 87; Council of, its decrees in favor cording to St. Thomas; 289; not the work of slaves, 109; the court of, endeavors to of man, 291; not to be saved by strict politmitigate the severity of the Spanish Inqui- ical doctrines, with6ut religion and moralsition, 208; mildness of the Inquisition at ity, 314; why modern conservative schools Rome compared with that in other places, are powerless in preserving it, 315; struggle 208; no instance of a capital sentence hav- therein between the three elements, monaring been pronounced thereby; 208; the de- chy, aristocracy, and democracy, 369. dine and fall of the empire of, 229. Solitaries, the early, described, 231; numbers Roscelin described, 400; compared with St. of, 231; influence of, in spiritualising ideas Anselm, 407. and improving morals, 232; overcome the Rouen, Council of, its decree in favor of the difficulties of the luxurious and enervating truce of God, 181. climate, 234; great men who received their Rousseau, doctrines of, 282; his appeal to the inspirations from them, 234. passions, 288; his Contrat Social, 299; his Spain, effects which the partial introduction of misrepresentation of Catholicity, 450; doc- Protestantism would have produced there trines of his Contrat Social, 451; his intoler- 74, 76, 77; power of religious ideas there, 76 ance, 451. peculiar manner in which revolutionary ideas have come into operation there, 77; SAAVEDRA, his popular doctrines, 313. has not yet obtained the government which Salamanca, Compendium of, on the transmis- she requires, 78: effects of the loss of her sion of power by the people's consent, 295. national unity, 78; her intolerance in reliSciences, the natural and social compared,85. gious matters not so great as it has been rcScipio, story of, 165. presented, 218; bold language used there Self-defence, right of, alleged as a plea for the with regard to politics, 312; industrial prointolerance of governments, 202. g ress therein, 354; Catholicity and politics Seneca, on the worship of the gods, 316. there, 377; real state of the question, 377; Sigebert, historical labors of, 241. causes of the ruin of her free institutions, Slaves, their large numbers among the an- 378; ancient and modern freedom, 378; cients, 91; their numbers at Athens, Sparta, Communeros of Castile, 379; policy of her IND E X. 501 rulers, 380; Ferdinand, Ximcnes, Charles Trent, Council of, gives bishops the power of V., and Philip II. 381. visiting hospitals, 449. Stephen, (Abbot), his account of the excesses Troja, Councils of, promote the truce of God, committed by the Manichees in France, 252. Ib0. Suarez, on the origin of power, 294; his reply to Truce of God described, 179; established by King James I. of England, 294; on the dis- Church Councils, 179; supported by Popes, putes between subjects and their rulers, 473. 180. Subtlety, spirit of, in the middle ages, its Truth, described, 69. causes, 406. Tubuza, Council of, establishes the truce of God, 179. TACITUS, scene from, of cruelty to slaves, 99; on the ancient Germans with regard to wo- UNBELIEVERS, doctrines of, with regard to er men, 152; his description of their manners, rors of the mind, 200.,why embellished, 152. Universities, those founded by Catholicity, 414. Tact, value of, 171. rancheme, excesses of, 250. VAISON, Council of, decree of, in favor of foundTelugis, Council of, ordains the truce of God, lings and against infanticide, 184. 180. Valois, Felix of, one of the founders of the Tertullian, apology of, 236. Order of the Most Holy Trinity for the RcTheodosious, the mnperor, excluded from the demption of Captives, 259. Church by St. Ambrose, for the slaughter at Vaudois, described, 252. Thessalonica..178. Verneul, Council of, 105. Theories, rapid succession of, in modern times, Villanueva, prejudice and egotism of, 457. 171. Vine-dressers, protected by the Council of Theresa, St., extracts from the visions of, 427. Rheims, 182. Thierry, M., his history of the Conquest of Virginity, respected by the ancients, &c., but England by the Normans, 120. not by Protestantism, 146; how important Thomas, St., of Aquin, extract from, on the that it should be respected, 146; not injuorigin of society, 289; on the Divine law, rious to the state, 147; its effects on the fe290; his definition of law, 319; his doctrines imale character, 149. with regard to laws and royal power, 319; Visions, (see Orders); effects of, 259; those of on obedience to laws, 328; utility of his die- Catholics, 427. tatorship in the schools in the middle ages Vives, Louis, on human knowledgc, 424. to the human mind, 411; passages from, on Voltaire described, 63; extract from, on the the duties of rulers and subjects, 470; his importance of the morals of courts to socicdoctrines on the forms of government, 4S0. ty, 137. Times, superiority of the primitive, has been Vows, vindication of religious, 228; those of exaggerated, 422. chastity in the early ages of tile Church, 458. Toledo, Councils of, 103, 107, 10S, 111. Toleration, how misunderstood and misreprc- WIDOWS, their vows of chastity in tie early sented, 190; prejudices against Catholicity ages of the Church, 458. with regard to, 19); principle of, considered, Witmar, a German monk, his clronicles much 191; in religious men is the produce of two esteemed 241; used by Leibnitz, 241. principles, charity and humility, 191; illus- Women, degraded condition of, arnongr the trations, shewing how they are affected by ancients, 136, 441; their elevation due enintercourse with the world on this point, 192; tirclv to Catholicity, 136, 156; how affected that of some irreligious men, 194; consider- by chivalry, 150; their elevation falsely ased in society and governments, 194; its ex- cribed to the ancient Germans, 151; proistence in society not owing to the philoso- tected by Councils, 182. phers, 195; its causes, 195; principle of uni- Worms, Council of, excommunicates those versal, discussed, 196. who refuse to be reconciled, 177. Tours, Council of, ordains that the poor shall be supported in their own town or parish, 187. ZEBALLOS, P.. on Christian politics and NaTrades-corporations, origin and salutary ef- both's vineyard, 467. fects of, 477. Ziegler, a Lutheran, an ardent defender o, Trades-union.-See Paris the immediate communication of tenpora Trajan, the emperor, 6000 gladiators slain at power, 463. his games, 174. ZonarLu, on charitable establishments, 187. Transubstantiation, discussion with regard to, Zuinglius, his phantom, 426. in consequence of the philosophy of Descartes, 397. TIE END.