{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_31278/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_31278","id":"gutenberg_31278","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/31278","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - Other","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","History","History -- Philosophy","Liberty -- History"],"text":"Produced by Steven Giacomelli, Graeme Mackreth and the\nOnline Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net\n(This file was produced from images generously made\navailable by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE HISTORY OF FREEDOM AND OTHER ESSAYS\n\n\nMACMILLAN AND CO., Limited\n\nLONDON . BOMBAY . CALCUTTA\nMELBOURNE\n\nTHE MACMILLAN COMPANY\n\nNEW YORK . BOSTON . CHICAGO\nATLANTA . SAN FRANSISCO\n\nTHE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA LTD.\n\nTORONTO\n\n\n[Illustration: Acton]\n\n\n\n\nTHE\n\nHISTORY OF FREEDOM\n\nAND OTHER ESSAYS\n\nBY\n\nJOHN EMERICH EDWARD DALBERG-ACTON\n\nFIRST BARON ACTON\n\nD.C.L., L.L.D., ETC. ETC. REGIUS PROFESSOR OF MODERN HISTORY IN THE\nUNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE\n\nEDITED WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY JOHN NEVILLE FIGGIS, Litt.D.\n\nSOMETIME LECTURER IN ST. CATHARINE'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE\n\nAND\n\nREGINALD VERE LAURENCE, M.A.\n\nFELLOW AND LECTURER OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE\n\n\nMACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED\n\nST. MARTIN'S STREET, LONDON\n\n1909\n\n_First Edition 1907_\n\n_Reprinted 1909_\n\n\n\n\nPREFATORY NOTE\n\n\nThe Editors desire to thank the members of the Acton family for their\nhelp and advice during the preparation of this volume and of the volume\nof _Historical Essays and Studies_. They have had the advantage of\naccess to many of Acton's letters, especially those to Doellinger and\nLady Blennerhasset. They have thus been provided with valuable material\nfor the Introduction. At the same time they wish to take the entire\nresponsibility for the opinions expressed therein. They are again\nindebted to Professor Henry Jackson for valuable suggestions.\n\nThis volume consists of articles reprinted from the following journals:\n_The Quarterly Review_, _The English Historical Review_, _The Nineteenth\nCentury_, _The Rambler_, _The Home and Foreign Review_, _The North\nBritish Review_, _The Bridgnorth Journal_. The Editors have to thank Mr.\nJohn Murray, Messrs. Longmans, Kegan Paul, Williams and Norgate, and the\nproprietors of _The Bridgnorth Journal_ for their kind permission to\nrepublish these articles, and also the Delegacy of the Clarendon Press\nfor allowing the reprint of the Introduction to Mr. Burd's edition of\n_Il Principe_. They desire to point out that in _Lord Acton and his\nCircle_ the article on \"The Protestant Theory of Persecution\" is\nattributed to Simpson: this is an error.\n\nJ.N.F.\nR.V.L.\n\n_August 24, 1907._\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n                                                                    PAGE\nPORTRAIT OF LORD ACTON                                    _Frontispiece_\n\nCHRONICLE                                                           viii\n\nINTRODUCTION                                                          ix\n\n   I.    THE HISTORY OF FREEDOM IN ANTIQUITY                           1\n\n  II.    THE HISTORY OF FREEDOM IN CHRISTIANITY                       30\n\n III.    SIR ERSKINE MAY'S DEMOCRACY IN EUROPE                        61\n\n  IV.    THE MASSACRE OF ST. BARTHOLOMEW                             101\n\n   V.    THE PROTESTANT THEORY OF PERSECUTION                        150\n\n  VI.    POLITICAL THOUGHTS ON THE CHURCH                            188\n\n VII.    INTRODUCTION TO L.A. BURD'S EDITION OF\n         IL PRINCIPE BY MACHIAVELLI                                  212\n\nVIII.    MR. GOLDWIN SMITH'S IRISH HISTORY                           232\n\n  IX.    NATIONALITY                                                 270\n\n   X.    DOeLLINGER ON THE TEMPORAL POWER                             301\n\n  XI.    DOeLLINGER'S HISTORICAL WORK                                 375\n\n XII.    CARDINAL WISEMAN AND THE HOME AND\n         FOREIGN REVIEW                                              436\n\nXIII.    CONFLICTS WITH ROME                                         461\n\n XIV.    THE VATICAN COUNCIL                                         492\n\n  XV.    A HISTORY OF THE INQUISITION OF THE MIDDLE\n         AGES. BY HENRY CHARLES LEA                                  551\n\n XVI.    THE AMERICAN COMMONWEALTH. BY JAMES\n         BRYCE                                                       575\n\nXVII.    HISTORICAL PHILOSOPHY IN FRANCE AND FRENCH\n         BELGIUM AND SWITZERLAND. BY ROBERT FLINT                    588\n\nAPPENDIX                                                             597\n\nINDEX                                                                599\n\n\n\n\nCHRONICLE\n\n\nJOHN EMERICH EDWARD DALBERG-ACTON, born at Naples,\n    10th January 1834, son of Sir Ferdinand Richard Edward\n    Dalberg-Acton and Marie de Dalberg, afterwards Countess\n    Granville.\n            French school near Paris.\n1843-1848. Student at Oscott\n              \"    \"  Edinburgh.\n1848-1854.    \"    \"  Munich University, living with Doellinger.\n  1855.    Visits America in company with Lord Ellesmere.\n1858-1862. Becomes editor of _The Rambler_.\n1859-1865. M.P. for Carlow.\n1862-1864. Founds, edits, and concludes _The Home and Foreign\n             Review_.\n  1864.    Pius IX. issued _Quanta Cura_, with appended _Syllabus\n             Errorum_.\n1865-1866. M.P. for Bridgnorth\n  1865.    Marries Countess Marie Arco-Valley.\n1867-1868. Writes for _The Chronicle_.\n  1869.    Created Baron Acton.\n1869-1871. Writes for _North British Review_.\n1869-1870. Vatican Council. Acton at Rome. Writes \"Letters\n             of Quirinus\" in _alleging Zeitung_.\n  1872.    Honorary degree at Munich.\n  1874.    Letters to _The Times_ on \"The Vatican Decrees.\"\n  1888.    Honorary degree at Cambridge.\n  1889.      \"        \"       Oxford.\n  1890.    Honorary Fellow of All Souls'.\n1892-1895. Lord-in-Waiting.\n1895-1902. Regius Professor of Modern History at Cambridge\n             Honorary Fellow of Trinity College.\n19th June 1902. Died at Tegernsee.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\nThe two volumes here published contain but a small selection from the\nnumerous writings of Acton on a variety of topics, which are to be found\nscattered through many periodicals of the last half-century. The result\nhere displayed is therefore not complete. A further selection of nearly\nequal quantity might be made, and still much that is valuable in Acton's\nwork would remain buried. Here, for instance, we have extracted nothing\nfrom the _Chronicle_; and Acton's gifts as a leader-writer remain\nwithout illustration. Yet they were remarkable. Rarely did he show to\nbetter advantage than in the articles and reviews he wrote in that\nshort-lived rival of the _Saturday Review_. From the two bound volumes\nof that single weekly, there might be made a selection which would be of\nhigh interest to all who cared to learn what was passing in the minds of\nthe most acute and enlightened members of the Roman Communion at one of\nthe most critical epochs in the history of the papacy. But what could\nnever be reproduced is the general impression of Acton's many\ncontributions to the _Rambler_, the _Home and Foreign_, and the _North\nBritish Review_. Perhaps none of his longer and more ceremonious\nwritings can give to the reader so vivid a sense at once of the range of\nActon's erudition and the strength of his critical faculty as does the\nperusal of these short notices. Any one who wished to understand the\npersonality of Acton could not do better than take the published\nBibliography and read a few of the articles on \"contemporary literature\"\nfurnished by him to the three Reviews. In no other way could the reader\nso clearly realise the complexity of his mind or the vast number of\nsubjects which he could touch with the hand of a master. In a single\nnumber there are twenty-eight such notices. His writing before he was\nthirty years of age shows an intimate and detailed knowledge of\ndocuments and authorities which with most students is the \"hard won and\nhardly won\" achievement of a lifetime of labour. He always writes as the\nstudent, never as the _litterateur_. Even the memorable phrases which\ngive point to his briefest articles are judicial, not journalistic. Yet\nhe treats of matters which range from the dawn of history through the\nancient empires down to subjects so essentially modern as the vast\nliterature of revolutionary France or the leaders of the romantic\nmovement which replaced it. In all these writings of Acton those\nqualities manifest themselves, which only grew stronger with time, and\ngave him a distinct and unique place among his contemporaries. Here is\nthe same austere love of truth, the same resolve to dig to the bed-rock\nof fact, and to exhaust all sources of possible illumination, the same\nbreadth of view and intensity of inquiring ardour, which stimulated his\nstudies and limited his productive power. Above all, there is the same\nunwavering faith in principles, as affording the only criterion of\njudgment amid the ever-fluctuating welter of human passions, political\nmanoeuvring, and ecclesiastical intrigue. But this is not all. We note\nthe same value for great books as the source of wisdom, combined with\nthe same enthusiasm for immediate justice which made Acton the despair\nof the mere academic student, an enigma among men of the world, and a\nstumbling-block to the politician of the clubs. Beyond this, we find\nthat certainty and decision of judgment, that crisp concentration of\nphrase, that grave and deliberate irony and that mastery of subtlety,\nallusion, and wit, which make his interpretation an adventure and his\njudgment a sword.\n\nA few instances may be given. In criticising a professor of history\nfamous in every way rather than as a student, Acton says, \"his Lectures\nare indeed not entirely unhistorical, for he has borrowed quite\ndiscriminatingly from Tocqueville.\" Of another writer he says that\n\"ideas, if they occur to him, he rejects like temptations to sin.\" Of\nRanke, thinking perhaps also of himself, he declares that \"his intimate\nknowledge of all the contemporary history of Europe is a merit not\nsuited to his insular readers.\" Of a partisan French writer under Louis\nNapoleon he says that \"he will have a fair grievance if he fails to\nobtain from a discriminating government some acknowledgment of the\nservices which mere historical science will find it hard to appreciate.\"\nOf Laurent he says, that \"sometimes it even happens that his information\nis not second-hand, and there are some original authorities with which\nhe is evidently familiar. The ardour of his opinions, so different from\nthose which have usually distorted history, gives an interest even to\nhis grossest errors. Mr. Buckle, if he had been able to distinguish a\ngood book from a bad one, would have been a tolerable imitation of M.\nLaurent.\" Perhaps, however, the most characteristic of these forgotten\njudgments is the description of Lord Liverpool and the class which\nsupported him. Not even Disraeli painting the leader of that party which\nhe was destined so strangely to \"educate\" could equal the austere and\naccurate irony with which Acton, writing as a student, not as a\nnovelist, sums up the characteristics of the class of his birth.\n\n   Lord Liverpool governed England in the greatest crisis of the war,\n   and for twelve troubled years of peace, chosen not by the nation, but\n   by the owners of the land. The English gentry were well content with\n   an order of things by which for a century and a quarter they had\n   enjoyed so much prosperity and power. Desiring no change they wished\n   for no ideas. They sympathised with the complacent respectability of\n   Lord Liverpool's character, and knew how to value the safe sterility\n   of his mind. He distanced statesmen like Grenville, Wellesley, and\n   Canning, not in spite of his inferiority, but by reason of it. His\n   mediocrity was his merit. The secret of his policy was that he had\n   none. For six years his administration outdid the Holy Alliance. For\n   five years it led the liberal movement throughout the world. The\n   Prime Minister hardly knew the difference. He it was who forced\n   Canning on the King. In the same spirit he wished his government to\n   include men who were in favour of the Catholic claims and men who\n   were opposed to them. His career exemplifies, not the accidental\n   combination but the natural affinity, between the love of\n   conservatism and the fear of ideas.\n\nThe longer essays republished in these volumes exhibit in most of its\ncharacteristics a personality which even those who disagreed with his\nviews must allow to have been one of the most remarkable products of\nEuropean culture in the nineteenth century. They will show in some\ndegree how Acton's mind developed in the three chief periods of his\nactivity, something of the influences which moulded it, a great deal of\nits preferences and its antipathies, and nearly all its directing\nideals. During the first period--roughly to be dated from 1855 to\n1863--he was hopefully striving, under the influence of Doellinger (his\nteacher from the age of seventeen), to educate his co-religionists in\nbreadth and sympathy, and to place before his countrymen ideals of right\nin politics, which were to him bound up with the Catholic faith. The\ncombination of scientific inquiry with true rules of political justice\nhe claimed, in a letter to Doellinger, as the aim of the _Home and\nForeign Review_. The result is to be seen in a quarterly, forgotten,\nlike all such quarterlies to-day, but far surpassing, alike in\nknowledge, range, and certainty, any of the other quarterlies,\npolitical, or ecclesiastical, or specialist, which the nineteenth\ncentury produced. There is indeed no general periodical which comes near\nto it for thoroughness of erudition and strength of thought, if not for\nbrilliance and ease; while it touches on topics contemporary and\npolitical in a way impossible to any specialist journal. A comparison\nwith the _British Critic_ in the religious sphere, with the _Edinburgh_\nin the political, will show how in all the weightier matters of learning\nand thought, the _Home and Foreign_ (indeed the _Rambler_) was their\nsuperior, while it displayed a cosmopolitan interest foreign to most\nEnglish journals.\n\nWe need not recapitulate the story so admirably told already by Doctor\nGasquet of the beginning and end of the various journalistic enterprises\nwith which Acton was connected. So far as he was concerned, however, the\ntime may be regarded as that of youth and hope.\n\nNext came what must be termed the \"fighting period,\" when he stood forth\nas the leader among laymen of the party opposed to that \"insolent and\naggressive faction\" which achieved its imagined triumph at the Vatican\nCouncil. This period, which may perhaps be dated from the issue of the\nSyllabus by Pius IX. in 1864, may be considered to close with the reply\nto Mr. Gladstone's pamphlet on \"The Vatican Decrees,\" and with the\nattempt of the famous Cardinal, in whose mind history was identified\nwith heresy, to drive from the Roman communion its most illustrious\nEnglish layman. Part of this story tells itself in the letters published\nby the Abbot Gasquet; and more will be known when those to Doellinger are\ngiven to the world.\n\nWe may date the third period of Acton's life from the failure of\nManning's attempt, or indeed a little earlier. He had now given up all\nattempt to contend against the dominant influence of the Court of Rome,\nthough feeling that loyalty to the Church of his Baptism, as a living\nbody, was independent of the disastrous policy of its hierarchy. During\nthis time he was occupied with the great unrealised project of the\nhistory of liberty or in movements of English politics and in the usual\navocations of a student. In the earlier part of this period are to be\nplaced some of the best things that Acton ever wrote, such as the\nlectures on Liberty, here republished. It is characterised by his\ndiscovery in the \"eighties\" that Doellinger and he were divided on the\nquestion of the severity of condemnation to be passed on persecutors and\ntheir approvers. Acton found to his dismay that Doellinger (like\nCreighton) was willing to accept pleas in arrest of judgment or at least\nmitigation of sentence, which the layman's sterner code repudiated.\nFinding that he had misunderstood his master, Acton was for a time\nprofoundly discouraged, declared himself isolated, and surrendered the\noutlook of literary work as vain. He found, in fact, that in\necclesiastical as in general politics he was alone, however much he\nmight sympathise with others up to a certain point. On the other hand,\nthese years witnessed a gradual mellowing of his judgment in regard to\nthe prospects of the Church, and its capacity to absorb and interpret in\na harmless sense the dogma against whose promulgation he had fought so\neagerly. It might also be correct to say that the English element in\nActon came out most strongly in this period, closing as it did with the\nCambridge Professorship, and including the development of the friendship\nbetween himself and Mr. Gladstone.\n\nWe have spoken both of the English element in Acton and of his European\nimportance. This is the only way in which it is possible to present or\nunderstand him. There were in him strains of many races. On his\nfather's side he was an English country squire, but foreign residence\nand the Neapolitan Court had largely affected the family, in addition to\nthat flavour of cosmopolitan culture which belongs to the more highly\nplaced Englishmen of the Roman Communion. On his mother's side he was a\nmember of one of the oldest and greatest families in Germany, which was\nonly not princely. The Dalbergs, moreover, had intermarried with an\nItalian family, the Brignoli. Trained first at Oscott under Wiseman, and\nafterwards at Munich under Doellinger, in whose house he lived, Acton by\neducation as well as birth was a cosmopolitan, while his marriage with\nthe family of Arco-Valley introduced a further strain of Bavarian\ninfluence into his life. His mother's second marriage with Lord\nGranville brought him into connection with the dominant influences of\nthe great Whig Houses. For a brief period, like many another county\nmagnate, he was a member of the House of Commons, but he never became\naccustomed to its atmosphere. For a longer time he lived at his house in\nShropshire, and was a stately and sympathetic host, though without much\ntaste for the avocations of country life. His English birth and Whig\nsurroundings were largely responsible for that intense constitutionalism,\nwhich was to him a religion, and in regard both to ecclesiastical and civil\npolitics formed his guiding criterion. This explains his detestation of all\nforms of absolutism on the one hand, and what he always called\n\"the revolution\" on the other.\n\nIt was not, however, the English strain that was most obvious in Acton,\nbut the German. It was natural that he should become fired under\nDoellinger's influence with the ideals of continental scholarship and\nexact and minute investigation. He had a good deal of the massive\nsolidity of the German intellect. He liked, as in the \"Letter to a\nGerman Bishop,\" to make his judgment appear as the culmination of so\nmuch weighty evidence, that it seemed to speak for itself. He had, too,\na little of the German habit of breaking a butterfly upon a wheel, and\nat times he makes reading difficult by a more than Teutonic\nallusiveness. It was not easy for Acton to bear in mind that the public\nis often ignorant of even the names of distinguished scholars, and that\n\"a European reputation\" is sometimes confined to the readers of\nspecialist publications.\n\nThe Italian strain in Acton is apparent in another quality, which is\nperhaps his one point of kinship with Machiavelli, the absence of\nhesitation from his thought, and of mystery from his writing. Subtle and\nironic as his style is, charged with allusion and weighted with passion,\nit is yet entirely devoid both of German sentiment and English\nvagueness. There was no haze in his mind. He judges, but does not paint\npictures. It may have been this absence of half-tones in his vein of\nthought, and of _chiaroscuro_ in his imagination that made Manning, an\nintelligent however hostile critic, speak of \"the ruthless talk of\nundergraduates.\"\n\nBut however much or little be allowed to the diverse strains of\nhereditary influence or outward circumstances, the interest of Acton to\nthe student lies in his intense individuality. That austerity of moral\njudgment, that sense of the greatness of human affairs, and of the vast\nissues that lie in action and in thought, was no product of outside\ninfluences, and went beyond what he had learnt from his master\nDoellinger. To treat politics as a game, to play with truth or make it\nsubservient to any cause other than itself, to take trivial views, was\nto Acton as deep a crime as to waste in pleasure or futility the hours\nso brief given for salvation of the soul would have seemed to Baxter or\nBunyan; indeed, there was an element of Puritan severity in his attitude\ntowards statesmen both ecclesiastical and civil. He was no \"light\nhalf-believer of a casual creed,\" but had a sense of reality more like\nDante than many moderns.\n\nThis, perhaps, it was that drew him ever closer to Mr. Gladstone, while\nit made the House of Commons and the daily doings of politicians\nuncongenial. There is no doubt that he had learned too well \"the secret\nof intellectual detachment.\" Early in his life his shrewd and kindly\nstepfather had pointed out to him the danger of losing influence by a\ntoo unrestrained desire to escape worshipping the idols of the\nmarketplace. There are, it is true, not wanting signs that his view of\nthe true relations of States and Churches may become one day more\ndominant, for it appears as though once more the earlier Middle Ages\nwill be justified, and religious bodies become the guardians of freedom,\neven in the political sphere. Still, a successful career in public life\ncould hardly be predicted for one who felt at the beginning that \"I\nagree with nobody, and nobody agrees with me,\" and towards the close\nadmitted that he \"never had any contemporaries.\" On the other hand, it\nmay be questioned whether, in the chief of his self-imposed tasks, he\nfailed so greatly as at first appeared. If he did not prevent\n\"infallibility\" being decreed, the action of the party of Strossmayer\nand Hefele assuredly prevented the form of the decree being so dangerous\nas they at first feared. We can only hazard a guess that the mild and\nminimising terms of the dogma, especially as they have since been\ninterpreted, were in reality no triumph to Veuillot and the Jesuits. In\nlater life Acton seems to have felt that they need not have the\ndangerous consequences, both in regard to historical judgments or\npolitical principles, which he had feared from the registered victory of\nultramontane reaction. However this may be, Acton's whole career is\nevidence of his detachment of mind, and entire independence even of his\nclosest associates. It was a matter to him not of taste but of\nprinciple. What mainly marked him out among men was the intense reality\nof his faith. This gave to all his studies their practical tone. He had\nnone of the pedant's contempt for ordinary life, none of the aesthete's\ncontempt for action as a \"little vulgar,\" and no desire to make of\nintellectual pursuits an end in themselves. His scholarship was to him\nas practical as his politics, and his politics as ethical as his faith.\nThus his whole life was a unity. All his various interests were inspired\nby one unconquered resolve, the aim of securing universally, alike in\nChurch and in State, the recognition of the paramountcy of principles\nover interests, of liberty over tyranny, of truth over all forms of\nevasion or equivocation. His ideal in the political world was, as he\nsaid, that of securing _suum cuique_ to every individual or association\nof human life, and to prevent any institution, however holy its aims,\nacquiring more.\n\nTo understand the ardour of his efforts it is necessary to bear in mind\nthe world into which he was born, and the crises intellectual,\nreligious, and political which he lived to witness and sometimes to\ninfluence. Born in the early days of the July monarchy, when reform in\nEngland was a novelty, and Catholic freedom a late-won boon, Acton as he\ngrew to manhood in Munich and in England had presented to his regard a\nseries of scenes well calculated to arouse a thoughtful mind to\nconsideration of the deepest problems, both of politics and religion.\nWhat must have been the \"long, long thoughts\" of a youth, naturally\nreflective and acutely observant, as he witnessed the break-up of the\nold order in '48 and the years that followed. In the most impressionable\nage of life he was driven to contemplate a Europe in solution; the crash\nof the kingdoms; the Pope a Liberal, an exile, and a reactionary; the\nprinciple of nationality claiming to supersede all vested rights, and\nto absorb and complete the work of '89; even socialism for once striving\nto reduce theory to practice, till there came the \"saviour of society\"\nwith the _coup d'etat_ and a new era of authority and despotism. This\nwas the outward aspect. In the world of thought he looked upon a period\nof moral and intellectual anarchy. Philosopher had succeeded\nphilosopher, critic had followed critic, Strauss and Baur were names to\nconjure with, and Hegel was still unforgotten in the land of his birth.\nMaterialistic science was in the very heyday of its parvenu and tawdry\nintolerance, and historical knowledge in the splendid dawn of that new\nworld of knowledge, of which Ranke was the Columbus. Everywhere faith\nwas shaken, and except for a few resolute and unconquered spirits, it\nseemed as though its defence were left to a class of men who thought the\nonly refuge of religion was in obscurity, the sole bulwark of order was\ntyranny, and the one support of eternal truth plausible and convenient\nfiction. What wonder then that the pupil of Doellinger should exhaust the\nintellectual and moral energies of a lifetime, in preaching to those who\ndirect the affairs of men the paramount supremacy of principle. The\ncourse of the plebiscitary Empire, and that gradual campaign in the\nUnited States by which the will of the majority became identified with\nthat necessity which knows no law, contributed further to educate his\nsense of right in politics, and to augment the distrust of power natural\nto a pupil of the great Whigs, of Burke, of Montesquieu, of Madame de\nStael. On the other hand, as a pupil of Doellinger, his religious faith\nwas deeper than could be touched by the recognition of facts, of which\ntoo many were notorious to make it even good policy to deny the rest;\nand he demanded with passion that history should set the follies and the\ncrimes of ecclesiastical authority in no better light than those of\ncivil.\n\nWe cannot understand Acton aright, if we do not remember that he was an\nEnglish Roman Catholic, to whom the penal laws and the exploitation of\nIreland were a burning injustice. They were in his view as foul a blot\non the Protestant establishment and the Whig aristocracy as was the St.\nBartholomew's medal on the memory of Gregory XIII., or the murder of the\nduc d'Enghien on the genius of Napoleon, or the burning of Servetus on\nthe sanctity of Calvin, or the permission of bigamy on the character of\nLuther, or the September Massacres on Danton.\n\nTwo other tendencies dominant in Germany--tendencies which had and have\na great power in the minds of scholars, yet to Acton, both as a\nChristian and a man, seemed corrupting--compelled him to a search for\nprinciples which might deliver him from slavery alike to traditions and\nto fashion, from the historian's vice of condoning whatever has got\nitself allowed to exist, and from the politician's habit of mere\nopportunist acquiescence in popular standards.\n\nFirst of these is the famous maxim of Schiller, _Die Welt-Geschichte ist\ndas Welt-Gericht_, which, as commonly interpreted, definitely identifies\nsuccess with right, and is based, consciously or unconsciously, on a\npantheistic philosophy. This tendency, especially when envisaged by an\nage passing through revolutionary nationalism back to Machiavelli's\nideals and _Realpolitik_, is clearly subversive of any system of public\nlaw or morality, and indeed is generally recognised as such nowadays\neven by its adherents.\n\nThe second tendency against which Acton's moral sense revolted, had\narisen out of the laudable determination of historians to be sympathetic\ntowards men of distant ages and of alien modes of thought. With the\nromantic movement the early nineteenth century placed a check upon the\nhabit of despising mediaeval ideals, which had been increasing from the\ndays of the Renaissance and had culminated in Voltaire. Instead of this,\nthere arose a sentiment of admiration for the past, while the general\ngrowth of historical methods of thinking supplied a sense of the\nrelativity of moral principles, and led to a desire to condone if not to\ncommend the crimes of other ages. It became almost a trick of style to\ntalk of judging men by the standard of their day and to allege the\nspirit of the age in excuse for the Albigensian Crusade or the burning\nof Hus. Acton felt that this was to destroy the very bases of moral\njudgment and to open the way to a boundless scepticism. Anxious as he\nwas to uphold the doctrine of growth in theology, he allowed nothing for\nit in the realm of morals, at any rate in the Christian era, since the\nthirteenth century. He demanded a code of moral judgment independent of\nplace and time, and not merely relative to a particular civilisation. He\nalso demanded that it should be independent of religion. His reverence\nfor scholars knew no limits of creed or church, and he desired some body\nof rules which all might recognise, independently of such historical\nphenomena as religious institutions. At a time when such varied and\ncontradictory opinions, both within and without the limits of Christian\nbelief, were supported by some of the most powerful minds and\ndistinguished investigators, it seemed idle to look for any basis of\nagreement beyond some simple moral principles. But he thought that all\nmen might agree in admitting the sanctity of human life and judging\naccordingly every man or system which needlessly sacrificed it. It is\nthis preaching in season and out of season against the reality of\nwickedness, and against every interference with the conscience, that is\nthe real inspiration both of Acton's life and of his writings.\n\nIt is related of Frederick Robertson of Brighton, that during one of\nhis periods of intellectual perplexity he found that the only rope to\nhold fast by was the conviction, \"it must be right to do right.\" The\nwhole of Lord Acton's career might be summed up in a counterphrase, \"it\nmust be wrong to do wrong.\" It was this conviction, universally and\nunwaveringly applied, and combined with an unalterable faith in Christ,\nwhich gave unity to all his efforts, sustained him in his struggle with\necclesiastical authority, accounted for all his sympathies, and\naccentuated his antipathies, while it at once expanded and limited his\ninterests. It is this that made his personality so much greater a gift\nto the world than any book which he might have written--had he cared\nless for the end and more for the process of historical knowledge.\n\nHe was interested in knowledge--that it might diminish prejudice and\nbreak down barriers. To a world in which the very bases of civilisation\nseemed to be dissolving he preached the need of directing ideals.\n\nArtistic interests were not strong in him, and the decadent pursuit of\nculture as a mere luxury had no stronger enemy. Intellectual activity,\napart from moral purpose, was anathema to Acton. He has been censured\nfor bidding the student of his hundred best books to steel his mind\nagainst the charm of literary beauty and style. Yet he was right. His\nlist of books was expressly framed to be a guide, not a pleasure; it was\nintended to supply the place of University direction to those who could\nnot afford a college life, and it throws light upon the various strands\nthat mingled in Acton and the historical, scientific, and political\ninfluences which formed his mind. He felt the danger that lurks in the\ncharm of literary beauty and style, for he had both as a writer and a\nreader a strong taste for rhetoric, and he knew how young minds are apt\nto be enchained rather by the persuasive spell of the manner than the\nliving thought beneath it. Above all, he detested the modern\njournalistic craze for novelty, and despised the shallowness which rates\ncleverness above wisdom.\n\nIn the same way his eulogy of George Eliot has been censured far more\nthan it has been understood. It was not as an artist superior to all\nothers that he praised the author of _Daniel Deronda_ and the translator\nof Strauss. It was because she supplied in her own person the solution\nof the problem nearest to his heart, and redeemed (so far as teaching\nwent) infidelity in religion from immorality in ethics. It was, above\nall, as a constructive teacher of morals that he admired George Eliot,\nwho might, in his view, save a daily increasing scepticism from its\nworst dangers, and preserve morals which a future age of faith might\nonce more inspire with religious ideals. Here was a writer at the summit\nof modern culture, saturated with materialistic science, a convinced and\nunchanging atheist, who, in spite of this, proclaimed in all her work\nthat moral law is binding, and upheld a code of ethics, Christian in\ncontent, though not in foundation.\n\nIn the same way his admiration for Mr. Gladstone is to be explained. It\nwas not his successes so much as his failures that attracted Acton, and\nabove all, his refusal to admit that nations, in their dealings with one\nanother, are subject to no law but that of greed. Doubtless one who gave\nhimself no credit for practical aptitude in public affairs, admired a\nman who had gifts that were not his own. But what Acton most admired was\nwhat many condemned. It was because he was not like Lord Palmerston,\nbecause Bismarck disliked him, because he gave back the Transvaal to the\nBoers, and tried to restore Ireland to its people, because his love of\nliberty never weaned him from loyalty to the Crown, and his politics\nwere part of his religion, that Acton used of Gladstone language rarely\nused, and still more rarely applicable, to any statesman. For this very\nreason--his belief that political differences do, while religious\ndifferences do not, imply a different morality--he censured so severely\nthe generous eulogy of Disraeli, just as in Doellinger's case he blamed\nthe praise of Dupanloup. For Acton was intolerant of all leniency\ntowards methods and individuals whom he thought immoral. He could give\nquarter to the infidel more easily than to the Jesuit.\n\nWe may, of course, deny that Acton was right. But few intelligent\nobservers can dispute the accuracy of his diagnosis, or deny that more\nthan anything else the disease of Western civilisation is a general lack\nof directing ideals other than those which are included in the gospel of\ncommercialism. It may surely be further admitted that even intellectual\nactivity has too much of triviality about it to-day; that if people\ndespise the schoolmen, it is rather owing to their virtues than their\ndefects, because impressionism has taken the place of thought, and\nbrilliancy that of labour. On the other hand, Acton's dream of ethical\nagreement, apart from religion, seems further off from realisation than\never.\n\nActon, however, wrote for a world which breathed in the atmosphere\ncreated by Kant. His position was something as follows: After the\ndiscovery of facts, a matter of honesty and industry independent of any\nopinions, history needs a criterion of judgment by which it may appraise\nmen's actions. This criterion cannot be afforded by religion, for\nreligion is one part of the historic process of which we are tracing the\nflow. The principles on which all can combine are the inviolable\nsanctity of human life, and the unalterable principle of even justice\nand toleration. Wherever these are violated our course is clear. Neither\ncustom nor convenience, neither distance of time nor difference of\nculture may excuse or even limit our condemnation. Murder is always\nmurder, whether it be committed by populace or patricians, by councils\nor kings or popes. Had they had their dues, Paolo Sarpi would have been\nin Newgate and George I. would have died at Tyburn.\n\nThe unbending severity of his judgment, which is sometimes carried to an\nexcess almost ludicrous, is further explained by another element in his\nexperience. In his letters to Doellinger and others he more than once\nrelates how in early life he had sought guidance in the difficult\nhistorical and ethical questions which beset the history of the papacy\nfrom many of the most eminent ultramontanes. Later on he was able to\ntest their answers in the light of his constant study of original\nauthorities and his careful investigation of archives. He found that the\nanswers given him had been at the best but plausible evasions. The\nletters make it clear that the harshness with which Acton always\nregarded ultramontanes was due to that bitter feeling which arises in\nany reflecting mind on the discovery that it has been put off with\nexplanations that did not explain, or left in ignorance of material\nfacts.\n\nLiberalism, we must remember, was a religion to Acton--_i.e._ liberalism\nas he understood it, by no means always what goes by the name. His\nconviction that ultramontane theories lead to immoral politics prompted\nhis ecclesiastical antipathies. His anger was aroused, not by any\nfeeling that Papal infallibility was a theological error, but by the\nbelief that it enshrined in the Church monarchical autocracy, which\ncould never maintain itself apart from crime committed or condoned. It\nwas not intellectual error but moral obliquity that was to him here, as\neverywhere, the enemy. He could tolerate unbelief, he could not tolerate\nsin. Machiavelli represented to him the worst of political principles,\nbecause in the name of the public weal he destroyed the individual's\nconscience. Yet he left a loophole in private life for religion, and a\nsinning statesman might one day become converted. But when the same\nprinciples are applied, as they have been applied by the Jesuit\norganisers of ultramontane reaction (also on occasion by Protestants),\n_ad majorem dei gloriam_, it is clear that the soul is corrupted at its\nhighest point, and the very means of serving God are made the occasion\nof denying him. Because for Acton there was no comparison between\ngoodness and knowledge, and because life was to him more than thought,\nbecause the passion of his life was to secure for all souls the freedom\nto live as God would have them live, he hated in the Church the politics\nof ultramontanism, and in the State the principles of Machiavelli. In\nthe same way he denied the legitimacy of every form of government, every\neconomic wrong, every party creed, which sacrificed to the pleasures or\nthe safety of the few the righteousness and salvation of the many. His\none belief was the right of every man not to have, but to be, his best.\n\nThis fact gives the key to what seems to many an unsolved contradiction,\nthat the man who said what he did say and fought as he had fought should\nyet declare in private that it had never occurred to him to doubt any\nsingle dogma of his Church, and assert in public that communion with it\nwas \"dearer than life itself\" Yet all the evidence both of his writings\nand his most intimate associates confirms this view. His opposition to\nthe doctrine of infallibility was ethical and political rather than\ntheological. As he wrote to Doellinger, the evil lay deeper, and\nVaticanism was but the last triumph of a policy that was centuries old.\nUnless he were turned out of her he would see no more reason to leave\nthe Church of his baptism on account of the Vatican Decrees than on\naccount of those of the Lateran Council. To the dogma of the Immaculate\nConception he had no hostility. And could not understand Doellinger's\ncondemnation of it, or reconcile it with his previous utterances. He had\ngreat sympathy with the position of Liberal High Anglicans; but there is\nnot the slightest reason to suppose that he ever desired to join the\nEnglish Church. Even with the old Catholic movement he had no sympathy,\nand dissuaded his friends from joining it.[1] All forms of Gallicanism\nwere distasteful to Acton, and he looked to the future for the victory\nof his ideas. His position in the Roman Church symbolises in an acute\nform what may be called the soul's tragedy of the whole nineteenth\ncentury, but Acton had not the smallest inclination to follow either\nGavazzi or Lamennais. It was, in truth, the unwavering loyalty of his\nchurchmanship and his far-reaching historical sense that enabled him to\nattack with such vehemence evils which he believed to be accidental and\ntemporary, even though they might have endured for a millennium. Long\nsearching of the vista of history preserved Acton from the common danger\nof confusing the eternal with what is merely lengthy. To such a mind as\nhis, it no more occurred to leave the Church because he disapproved some\nof its official procedure, than it would to an Englishman to surrender\nhis nationality when his political opponents came into office. He\ndistinguished, as he said Froschammer ought to have done, between the\nauthorities and the authority of the Church. He had a strong belief in\nthe doctrine of development, and felt that it would prove impossible in\nthe long run to bind the Christian community to any explanation of the\nfaith which should have a non-Christian or immoral tendency. He left it\nto time and the common conscience to clear the dogma from association\nwith dangerous political tendencies, for his loyalty to the institution\nwas too deep to be affected by his dislike of the _Camarilla_ in power.\nHe not only did not desire to leave the Church, but took pains to make\nhis confession and receive absolution immediately after his letters\nappeared in the _Times_. It must also be stated that so far from\napproving Mr. Gladstone's attack on Vaticanism, he did his utmost to\nprevent its publication, which he regarded as neither fair nor wise.\n\nIt is true that Acton's whole tendency was individualistic, and his\ninner respect for mere authority apart from knowledge and judgment was\ndoubtless small. But here we must remember what he said once of the\npolitical sphere--that neither liberty nor authority is conceivable\nexcept in an ordered society, and that they are both relative to\nconditions remote alike from anarchy and tyranny. Doubtless he leaned\naway from those in power, and probably felt of Manning as strongly as\nthe latter wrote of him. Yet his individualism was always active within\nthe religious society, and never contemplated itself as outside. He\nshowed no sympathy for any form of Protestantism, except the purely\npolitical side of the Independents and other sects which have promoted\nliberty of conscience.\n\nActon's position as a churchman is made clearer by a view of his\npolitics. At once an admirer and an adviser of Mr. Gladstone, he\nprobably helped more than any other single friend to make his leader a\nHome Ruler. Yet he was anything but a modern Radical: for liberty was\nhis goddess, not equality, and he dreaded any single power in a State,\nwhether it was the King, or Parliament, or People. Neither popes nor\nprinces, not even Protestant persecutors, did Acton condemn more deeply\nthan the crimes of majorities and the fury of uncontrolled democracy. It\nwas not the rule of one or many that was his ideal, but a balance of\npowers that might preserve freedom and keep every kind of authority\nsubject to law. For, as he said, \"liberty is not a means to a higher\nend, it is itself the highest political end.\" His preference was,\ntherefore, not for any sovereign one or number, such as formed the ideal\nof Rousseau or the absolutists; but for a monarchy of the English type,\nwith due representation to the aristocratic and propertied classes, as\nwell as adequate power to the people. He did not believe in the doctrine\nof numbers, and had no sympathy with the cry _Vox populi Vox Dei_; on\nthe other hand, he felt strongly that the stake in the country argument\nreally applied with fullest force to the poor, for while political error\nmeans mere discomfort to the rich, it means to the poor the loss of all\nthat makes life noble and even of life itself. As he said in one of his\nalready published letters:--\n\n   The men who pay wages ought not to be the political masters of those\n   who earn them, for laws should be adapted to those who have the\n   heaviest stake in the country, for whom misgovernment means not\n   mortified pride or stinted luxury, but want and pain and degradation,\n   and risk to their own lives and to their children's souls.\n\nWhile he felt the dangers of Rousseau's doctrine of equality, declaring\nthat in the end it would be destructive alike of liberty and religion,\nhe was yet strongly imbued with the need of reconciling some of the\nsocialists' ideals with the regard due to the principles which he\nrespected. He was anxious to promote the study of Roscher and the\nhistorical economists, and he seems to have thought that by their means\nsome solution of the great economic evils of the modern world might be\nfound, which should avoid injustice either to the capitalist or the\nwage-earner. He had a burning hatred of injustice and tyranny, which\nmade him anxious to see the horrors of the modern proletariat system\nmitigated and destroyed; but combined with this there was a very deep\nsense of the need of acting on principles universally valid, and a\ndistrust of any merely emotional enthusiasm which might, in the future,\ncreate more evils than it cured. Acton was, in truth, the incarnation of\nthe \"spirit of Whiggism,\" although in a very different sense of the\nphrase from that in which it became the target for the arrows of\nDisraeli's scorn and his mockery of the Venetian constitution. He was\nnot the Conservative Whig of the \"glorious revolution,\" for to him the\nmemory of William of Orange might be immortal but was certainly not\npious: yet it was \"revolution principles\" of which he said that they\nwere the great gift of England to the world. By this he meant the real\nprinciples by which the events of 1688 could be philosophically\njustified, when purged of all their vulgar and interested associations,\nraised above their connection with a territorial oligarchy, and based on\nreasoned and universal ideals. Acton's liberalism was above all things\nhistorical, and rested on a consciousness of the past. He knew very well\nthat the roots of modern constitutionalism were mediaeval, and declared\nthat it was the stolid conservatism of the English character, which had\nalone enabled it to preserve what other nations had lost in the passion\nfor autocracy that characterised the men of the Renaissance and the\nReformation. Constitutional government was for him the sole eternal\ntruth in politics, the rare but the only guardian of freedom. He loved\nto trace the growth of the principle of power limiting itself and law\ntriumphant alike over king, aristocracies, and majorities; and to show\nhow it arose out of the cruel conflicts of the religious wars and rested\nupon the achievements of Constance and the efforts of Basle, and how it\nwas influenced in expression by the thinkers of the ancient world and\nthe theologians of the modern, by the politics of Aristotle, by the\nmaxims of Ulpian and of Gaius, by the theology of St. Thomas and\nOckham, and even by Suarez and Molina.\n\nWhat Acton feared and hated was the claim of absolutism to crush the\nindividuality and destroy the conscience of men. It was indifferent to\nhim whether this claim was exercised by Church or State, by Pope or\nCouncil, or King or Parliament. He felt, however, that it was more\ndangerous because more absorbing when exercised in religious matters,\nand thus condemned the Protestant theory more deeply than the Catholic\npermission of persecution. He also felt that monarchy was more easily\nchecked than pure democracy, and that the risk of tyranny was greater in\nthe latter.\n\nProvided that freedom was left to men to do their duty, Acton was not\ngreatly careful of mere rights. He had no belief in the natural equality\nof men, and no dislike of the subordination of classes on the score of\nbirth. His ideal of freedom as of the Church was in some respects that\nof the earlier Middle Ages. He did not object to serfdom, provided that\nit safeguarded the elementary rights of the serf to serve God as well as\nman. In the great struggle in America, he had no sympathy with the\nNorth, which seemed to him to make majority rule the only measure of\nright: and he wrote, if not in favour, at least in palliation, of\nslavery. It may be doubted how far he would have used the same language\nin later life, but his reasons were in accord with all his general\nviews. Slavery might be rendered harmless by the State, and some form of\ncompulsion might be the only way of dealing with child-races, indeed, it\nmight be merely a form of education no more morally blameworthy than the\nlegal disabilities of minors. But the absolute state recognising no\nlimits but its own will, and bound by no rule either of human or Divine\nlaw, appeared to him definitely immoral.\n\nActon's political conscience was also very broad on the side technically\ncalled moral. No one had higher ideals of purity. Yet he had little\ndesire to pry into the private morality of kings or politicians. It was\nby the presence or absence of _political_ principles that he judged\nthem. He would have condemned Pope Paul the Fourth more than Rodrigo\nBorgia, and the inventor of the \"dragonnades\" more than his\ngreat-grandson. He did not view personal morality as relevant to\npolitical judgment.\n\nIn this, if in nothing else, he agreed with Creighton. His\ncorrespondence with the latter throws his principles into the strongest\nlight, and forms the best material for a judgment. For it must, we\nthink, be admitted that he applied these doctrines with a rigidity which\nhuman affairs will not admit, and assumed a knowledge beyond our\ncapacity. To declare that no one could be in a state of grace who\npraised S. Carlo Borromeo, because the latter followed the evil\nprinciple of his day in the matter of persecution, is not merely to make\nthe historian a hanging judge, but to ignore the great truth that if\ncrime is always crime, degrees of temptation are widely variable. The\nfact is, Acton's desire to maintain the view that \"morality is not\nambulatory,\" led him at times to ignore the complementary doctrine that\nit certainly develops, and that the difficulties of statesmen or\necclesiastics, if they do not excuse, at least at times explain their\nless admirable courses. At the very close of his life Acton came to this\nview himself. In a pathetic conversation with his son, he lamented the\nharshness of some of his judgments, and hoped the example would not be\nfollowed.\n\nStill, Acton, if he erred here, erred on the nobler side. The doctrine\nof moral relativity had been overdone by historians, and the principles\nof Machiavelli had become so common a cry of politicians, that severe\nprotest was necessary. The ethics of Nietzsche are the logical\nexpansion of Machiavelli, and his influence is proof that, in the\nlong-run, men cannot separate their international code from their\nprivate one. We must remember that Acton lived in a time when, as he\nsaid, the course of history had been \"twenty-five times diverted by\nactual or attempted crime,\" and when the old ideals of liberty seemed\nswallowed up by the pursuit of gain. To all those who reflect on history\nor politics, it was a gain of the highest order that at the very summit\nof historical scholarship and profound political knowledge there should\nbe placed a leader who erred on the unfashionable side, who denied the\nstatesmen's claim to subject justice to expediency, and opposed the\npartisan's attempt to palter with facts in the interest of his creed.\n\nIt is these principles which both explain Acton's work as a student, and\nmake it so difficult to understand. He believed, that as an investigator\nof facts the historian must know no passion, save that of a desire to\nsift evidence; and his notion of this sifting was of the remorseless\nscientific school of Germany, which sometimes, perhaps, expects more in\nthe way of testimony than human life affords. At any rate, Acton\ndemanded that the historian must never misconceive the case of the\nadversaries of his views, or leave in shade the faults of his own side.\nBut on the other hand, when he comes to interpret facts or to trace\ntheir relation, his views and even his temperament will affect the\nresult. It is only the barest outline that can be quite objective. In\nActon's view the historian as investigator is one thing, the historian\nas judge another. In an early essay on Doellinger he makes a distinction\nof this kind. The reader must bear it in mind in considering Acton's own\nwriting. Some of the essays here printed, and still more the lectures,\nare anything but colourless; they show very distinctly the predilections\nof the writer, and it is hardly conceivable that they should have been\nwritten by a defender of absolutism, or even by an old-fashioned Tory.\nWhat Acton really demanded was not the academic aloofness of the pedant\nwho stands apart from the strife of principles, but the honesty of\npurpose which \"throws itself into the mind of one's opponents, and\naccounts for their mistakes,\" giving their case the best possible\ncolouring. For, to be sure of one's ground, one must meet one's\nadversaries' strongest arguments, and not be content with merely picking\nholes in his armour. Otherwise one's own belief may be at the mercy of\nthe next clever opponent. The reader may doubt how far Acton succeeded\nin his own aim, for there was a touch of intolerance in his hatred of\nabsolutism, and he believed himself to be divided from his\necclesiastical and political foes by no mere intellectual difference but\nby a moral cleavage. Further, his writing is never half-hearted. His\nconvictions were certitudes based on continual reading and reflection,\nand admitting in his mind of no qualification. He was eminently a\nVictorian in his confidence that he was right. He had none of the\ninvertebrate tendency of mind which thinks it is impartial, merely\nbecause it is undecided, and regards the judicial attitude as that which\nrefrains from judging. Acton's was not a doubting mind. If he now and\nthen suspended his judgment, it was as an act of deliberate choice,\nbecause he had made up his mind that the matter could not be decided,\nnot because he could not decide to make up his mind. Whether he was\nright or wrong, he always knew what he thought, and his language was as\nexact an expression of his meaning as he could make it. It was true that\nhis subtle and far-sighted intelligence makes his style now and then\nlike a boomerang, as when he says of Ranke's method \"it is a discipline\nwe shall all do well to adopt, and also do well to relinquish.\" Indeed,\nit is hardly possible to read a single essay without observing this\nmarked characteristic. He has been called a \"Meredith turned historian,\"\nand that there is truth in this judgment, any one who sees at once the\ndifficulty and the suggestiveness of his reviews can bear witness. He\ncould hardly write the briefest note without stamping his personality\nupon it and exhibiting the marks of a very complex culture. But the main\ncharacteristic of his style is that it represents the ideals of a man to\nwhom every word was sacred. Its analogies are rather in sculpture than\npainting. Each paragraph, almost every sentence is a perfectly chiselled\nwhole, impressive by no brilliance or outside polish, so much as by the\ninward intensity of which it is the symbol. Thus his writing is never\nfluent or easy, but it has a moral dignity rare and unfashionable.\n\nActon, indeed, was by no means without a gift of rhetoric, and in the\n\"Lecture on Mexico,\" here republished, there is ample evidence of a\npower of handling words which should impress a popular audience. It is\nin gravity of judgment and in the light he can draw from small details\nthat his power is most plainly shown. On the other hand, he had a little\nof the scholar's love of clinging to the bank, and, as the notes to his\n\"Inaugural\" show, he seems at times too much disposed to use the\ncrutches of quotation to prop up positions which need no such support.\nIt was of course the same habit--the desire not to speak before he had\nread everything that was relevant, whether in print or manuscript--that\nhindered so severely his output. His projected _History of Liberty_ was,\nfrom the first, impossible of achievement. It would have required the\nintellects of Napoleon and Julius Caesar combined, and the lifetime of\nthe patriarchs, to have executed that project as Acton appears to have\nplanned it. A _History of Liberty_, beginning with the ancient world and\ncarried down to our own day, to be based entirely upon original\nsources, treating both of the institutions which secured it, the persons\nwho fought for it, and the ideas which expressed it, and taking note of\nall that scholars had written about every several portion of the\nsubject, was and is beyond the reach of a single man. Probably towards\nthe close of his life Acton had felt this. The _Cambridge Modern\nHistory_, which required the co-operation of so many specialists, was to\nhim really but a fragment of this great project.\n\nTwo other causes limited Acton's output. Towards the close of the\nseventies he began to suspect, and eventually discovered, that he and\nDoellinger were not so close together as he had believed. That is to say,\nhe found that in regard to the crimes of the past, Doellinger's position\nwas more like that of Creighton than his own--that, while he was willing\nto say persecution was always wrong, he was not willing to go so far as\nActon in rejecting every kind of mitigating plea and with mediaeval\ncertainty consigning the persecutors to perdition. Acton, who had as he\nthought, learnt all this from Doellinger, was distressed at what seemed\nto him the weakness and the sacerdotal prejudice of his master, felt\nthat he was now indeed alone, and for the time surrendered, as he said,\nall views of literary work. This was the time when he had been gathering\nmaterials for a _History of the Council of Trent_. That this cleavage,\ncoming when it did, had a paralysing effect on Acton's productive energy\nis most probable, for it made him feel that he was no longer one of a\nschool, and was without sympathy and support in the things that lay\nnearest his heart.\n\nAnother cause retarded production--his determination to know all about\nthe work of others. Acton desired to be in touch with university life\nall over Europe, to be aware, if possible through personal knowledge, of\nthe trend of investigation and thought of scholars working in all the\ncognate branches of his subject. To keep up thoroughly with other\npeople's work, and do much original writing of one's own, is rarely\npossible. At any rate we may say that the same man could not have\nproduced the essay on German schools of history, and written a _magnum\nopus_ of his own.\n\nHis life marks what, in an age of minute specialism, must always be at\nonce the crown and the catastrophe of those who take all knowledge for\ntheir province. His achievement is something different from any book.\nActon's life-work was, in fact, himself. Those who lament what he might\nhave written as a historian would do well to reflect on the unique\nposition which he held in the world of letters, and to ask themselves\nhow far he could have wielded the influence that was his, or held the\nstandard so high, had his own achievement been greater. Men such as\nActon and Hort give to the world, by their example and disposition, more\nthan any written volume could convey. In both cases a great part of\ntheir published writings has had, at least in book form, to be\nposthumous. But their influence on other workers is incalculable, and\nhas not yet determined.\n\nTo an age doubting on all things, and with the moral basis of its action\nlargely undermined, Acton gave the spectacle of a career which was as\nmoving as it was rare. He stood for a spirit of unwavering and even\nchildlike faith united to a passion for scientific inquiry, and a scorn\nof consequences, which at times made him almost an iconoclast. His whole\nlife was dedicated to one high end, the aim of preaching the need of\nprinciples based on the widest induction and the most penetrating\nthought, as the only refuge amid the storm and welter of sophistical\nphilosophies and ecclesiastical intrigues. The union of faith with\nknowledge, and the eternal supremacy of righteousness, this was the\nmessage of Acton to mankind. It may be thought that he sometimes\nexaggerated his thesis, that he preached it out of season, that he laid\nhimself open to the charge of being doctrinaire, and that in fighting\nfor it he failed to utter the resources of his vast learning. Enough,\nhowever, is left to enable the world to judge what he was. No books ever\ndo more than that for any man. Those who are nice in comparisons may\nweigh against the book lost the man gained. Those who loved him will\nknow no doubt.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe following document was found among Lord Acton's Papers. It records\nin an imaginative form the ideals which he set before him. Perhaps it\nforms the most fitting conclusion to this Introduction.\n\n   This day's post informed me of the death of Adrian, who was the best\n   of all men I have known. He loved retirement, and avoided company,\n   but you might sometimes meet him coming from scenes of sorrow, silent\n   and appalled, as if he had seen a ghost, or in the darkest corner of\n   churches, his dim eyes radiant with light from another world. In\n   youth he had gone through much anxiety and contention; but he lived\n   to be trusted and honoured. At last he dropped out of notice and the\n   memory of men, and that part of his life was the happiest.\n\n   Years ago, when I saw much of him, most people had not found him out.\n   There was something in his best qualities themselves that baffled\n   observation, and fell short of decided excellence. He looked absent\n   and preoccupied, as if thinking of things he cared not to speak of,\n   and seemed but little interested in the cares and events of the day.\n   Often it was hard to decide whether he had an opinion, and when he\n   showed it, he would defend it with more eagerness and obstinacy than\n   we liked. He did not mingle readily with others or co-operate in any\n   common undertaking, so that one could not rely on him socially, or\n   for practical objects. As he never spoke harshly of persons, so he\n   seldom praised them warmly, and there was some apparent indifference\n   and want of feeling. Ill success did not depress, but happy prospects\n   did not elate him, and though never impatient, he was not actively\n   hopeful. Facetious friends called him the weather-cock, or Mr.\n   Facingbothways, because there was no heartiness in his judgments, and\n   he satisfied nobody, and said things that were at first sight\n   grossly inconsistent, without attempting to reconcile them. He was\n   reserved about himself, and gave no explanations, so that he was\n   constantly misunderstood, and there was a sense of failure, of\n   disappointment, of perplexity about him.\n\n   These things struck me, as well as others, and at first repelled me.\n   I could see indeed, at the same time, that his conduct was remarkably\n   methodical, and was guided at every step by an inexhaustible\n   provision of maxims. He had meditated on every contingency in life,\n   and was prepared with rules and precepts, which he never disobeyed.\n   But I doubted whether all this was not artificial,--a contrivance to\n   satisfy the pride of intellect and establish a cold superiority. In\n   time I discovered that it was the perfection of a developed\n   character. He had disciplined his soul with such wisdom and energy as\n   to make it the obedient and spontaneous instrument of God's will, and\n   he moved in an orbit of thoughts beyond our reach.\n\n   It was part of his religion to live much in the past, to realise\n   every phase of thought, every crisis of controversy, every stage of\n   progress the Church has gone through. So that the events and ideas of\n   his own day lost much of their importance in comparison, were old\n   friends with new faces, and impressed him less than the multitude of\n   those that went before. This caused him to seem absent and\n   indifferent, rarely given to admire, or to expect. He respected other\n   men's opinions, fearing to give pain, or to tempt with anger by\n   contradiction, and when forced to defend his own he felt bound to\n   assume that every one would look sincerely for the truth, and would\n   gladly recognise it. But he could not easily enter into their motives\n   when they were mixed, and finding them generally mixed, he avoided\n   contention by holding much aloof. Being quite sincere, he was quite\n   impartial, and pleaded with equal zeal for what seemed true, whether\n   it was on one side or on the other. He would have felt dishonest if\n   he had unduly favoured people of his own country, his own religion,\n   or his own party, or if he had entertained the shadow of a prejudice\n   against those who were against them, and when he was asked why he did\n   not try to clear himself from misrepresentation, he said that he was\n   silent both from humility and pride.\n\n   At last I understood that what we had disliked in him was his virtue\n   itself.\n\nJ.N.F.\nR.V.L.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 1: There is no foundation for the statement of Canon Meyrick\nin his _Reminiscences_, that Acton, had he lived on the Continent, would\nhave undoubtedly become an Old Catholic. He did very largely live on the\nContinent. Nor did even Doellinger, of whom Dr. Meyrick also asserts it,\never become an adherent of that movement.]\n\n\n\n\nI\n\nTHE HISTORY OF FREEDOM IN ANTIQUITY[2]\n\n\nLiberty, next to religion, has been the motive of good deeds and the\ncommon pretext of crime, from the sowing of the seed at Athens, two\nthousand four hundred and sixty years ago, until the ripened harvest was\ngathered by men of our race. It is the delicate fruit of a mature\ncivilisation; and scarcely a century has passed since nations, that knew\nthe meaning of the term, resolved to be free. In every age its progress\nhas been beset by its natural enemies, by ignorance and superstition, by\nlust of conquest and by love of ease, by the strong man's craving for\npower, and the poor man's craving for food. During long intervals it has\nbeen utterly arrested, when nations were being rescued from barbarism\nand from the grasp of strangers, and when the perpetual struggle for\nexistence, depriving men of all interest and understanding in politics,\nhas made them eager to sell their birthright for a mess of pottage, and\nignorant of the treasure they resigned. At all times sincere friends of\nfreedom have been rare, and its triumphs have been due to minorities,\nthat have prevailed by associating themselves with auxiliaries whose\nobjects often differed from their own; and this association, which is\nalways dangerous, has been sometimes disastrous, by giving to opponents\njust grounds of opposition, and by kindling dispute over the spoils in\nthe hour of success. No obstacle has been so constant, or so difficult\nto overcome, as uncertainty and confusion touching the nature of true\nliberty. If hostile interests have wrought much injury, false ideas have\nwrought still more; and its advance is recorded in the increase of\nknowledge, as much as in the improvement of laws. The history of\ninstitutions is often a history of deception and illusions; for their\nvirtue depends on the ideas that produce and on the spirit that\npreserves them, and the form may remain unaltered when the substance has\npassed away.\n\nA few familiar examples from modern politics will explain why it is that\nthe burden of my argument will lie outside the domain of legislation. It\nis often said that our Constitution attained its formal perfection in\n1679, when the Habeas Corpus Act was passed. Yet Charles II. succeeded,\nonly two years later, in making himself independent of Parliament. In\n1789, while the States-General assembled at Versailles, the Spanish\nCortes, older than Magna Charta and more venerable than our House of\nCommons, were summoned after an interval of generations, but they\nimmediately prayed the King to abstain from consulting them, and to make\nhis reforms of his own wisdom and authority. According to the common\nopinion, indirect elections are a safeguard of conservatism. But all the\nAssemblies of the French Revolution issued from indirect elections. A\nrestricted suffrage is another reputed security for monarchy. But the\nParliament of Charles X., which was returned by 90,000 electors,\nresisted and overthrew the throne; while the Parliament of Louis\nPhilippe, chosen by a Constitution of 250,000, obsequiously promoted the\nreactionary policy of his Ministers, and in the fatal division which, by\nrejecting reform, laid the monarchy in the dust, Guizot's majority was\nobtained by the votes of 129 public functionaries. An unpaid legislature\nis, for obvious reasons, more independent than most of the Continental\nlegislatures which receive pay. But it would be unreasonable in America\nto send a member as far as from here to Constantinople to live for\ntwelve months at his own expense in the dearest of capital cities.\nLegally and to outward seeming the American President is the successor\nof Washington, and still enjoys powers devised and limited by the\nConvention of Philadelphia. In reality the new President differs from\nthe Magistrate imagined by the Fathers of the Republic as widely as\nMonarchy from Democracy, for he is expected to make 70,000 changes in\nthe public service; fifty years ago John Quincy Adams dismissed only two\nmen. The purchase of judicial appointments is manifestly indefensible;\nyet in the old French monarchy that monstrous practice created the only\ncorporation able to resist the king. Official corruption, which would\nruin a commonwealth, serves in Russia as a salutary relief from the\npressure of absolutism. There are conditions in which it is scarcely a\nhyperbole to say that slavery itself is a stage on the road to freedom.\nTherefore we are not so much concerned this evening with the dead letter\nof edicts and of statutes as with the living thoughts of men. A century\nago it was perfectly well known that whoever had one audience of a\nMaster in Chancery was made to pay for three, but no man heeded the\nenormity until it suggested to a young lawyer that it might be well to\nquestion and examine with rigorous suspicion every part of a system in\nwhich such things were done. The day on which that gleam lighted up the\nclear hard mind of Jeremy Bentham is memorable in the political calendar\nbeyond the entire administration of many statesmen. It would be easy to\npoint out a paragraph in St. Augustine, or a sentence of Grotius that\noutweighs in influence the Acts of fifty Parliaments, and our cause owes\nmore to Cicero and Seneca, to Vinet and Tocqueville, than to the laws of\nLycurgus or the Five Codes of France.\n\nBy liberty I mean the assurance that every man shall be protected in\ndoing what he believes his duty against the influence of authority and\nmajorities, custom and opinion. The State is competent to assign duties\nand draw the line between good and evil only in its immediate sphere.\nBeyond the limits of things necessary for its well-being, it can only\ngive indirect help to fight the battle of life by promoting the\ninfluences which prevail against temptation,--religion, education, and\nthe distribution of wealth. In ancient times the State absorbed\nauthorities not its own, and intruded on the domain of personal freedom.\nIn the Middle Ages it possessed too little authority, and suffered\nothers to intrude. Modern States fall habitually into both excesses. The\nmost certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is\nthe amount of security enjoyed by minorities. Liberty, by this\ndefinition, is the essential condition and guardian of religion; and it\nis in the history of the Chosen People, accordingly, that the first\nillustrations of my subject are obtained. The government of the\nIsraelites was a Federation, held together by no political authority,\nbut by the unity of race and faith, and founded, not on physical force,\nbut on a voluntary covenant. The principle of self-government was\ncarried out not only in each tribe, but in every group of at least 120\nfamilies; and there was neither privilege of rank nor inequality before\nthe law. Monarchy was so alien to the primitive spirit of the community\nthat it was resisted by Samuel in that momentous protestation and\nwarning which all the kingdoms of Asia and many of the kingdoms of\nEurope have unceasingly confirmed. The throne was erected on a compact;\nand the king was deprived of the right of legislation among a people\nthat recognised no lawgiver but God, whose highest aim in politics was\nto restore the original purity of the constitution, and to make its\ngovernment conform to the ideal type that was hallowed by the sanctions\nof heaven. The inspired men who rose in unfailing succession to prophesy\nagainst the usurper and the tyrant, constantly proclaimed that the laws,\nwhich were divine, were paramount over sinful rulers, and appealed from\nthe established authorities, from the king, the priests, and the princes\nof the people, to the healing forces that slept in the uncorrupted\nconsciences of the masses. Thus the example of the Hebrew nation laid\ndown the parallel lines on which all freedom has been won--the doctrine\nof national tradition and the doctrine of the higher law; the principle\nthat a constitution grows from a root, by process of development, and\nnot of essential change; and the principle that all political\nauthorities must be tested and reformed according to a code which was\nnot made by man. The operation of these principles, in unison, or in\nantagonism, occupies the whole of the space we are going over together.\n\nThe conflict between liberty under divine authority and the absolutism\nof human authorities ended disastrously. In the year 622 a supreme\neffort was made at Jerusalem to reform and preserve the State. The High\nPriest produced from the temple of Jehovah the book of the deserted and\nforgotten Law, and both king and people bound themselves by solemn oaths\nto observe it. But that early example of limited monarchy and of the\nsupremacy of law neither lasted nor spread; and the forces by which\nfreedom has conquered must be sought elsewhere. In the very year 586, in\nwhich the flood of Asiatic despotism closed over the city which had\nbeen, and was destined again to be, the sanctuary of freedom in the\nEast, a new home was prepared for it in the West, where, guarded by the\nsea and the mountains, and by valiant hearts, that stately plant was\nreared under whose shade we dwell, and which is extending its invincible\narms so slowly and yet so surely over the civilised world.\n\nAccording to a famous saying of the most famous authoress of the\nContinent, liberty is ancient, and it is despotism that is new. It has\nbeen the pride of recent historians to vindicate the truth of that\nmaxim. The heroic age of Greece confirms it, and it is still more\nconspicuously true of Teutonic Europe. Wherever we can trace the earlier\nlife of the Aryan nations we discover germs which favouring\ncircumstances and assiduous culture might have developed into free\nsocieties. They exhibit some sense of common interest in common\nconcerns, little reverence for external authority, and an imperfect\nsense of the function and supremacy of the State. Where the division of\nproperty and labour is incomplete there is little division of classes\nand of power. Until societies are tried by the complex problems of\ncivilisation they may escape despotism, as societies that are\nundisturbed by religious diversity avoid persecution. In general, the\nforms of the patriarchal age failed to resist the growth of absolute\nStates when the difficulties and temptations of advancing life began to\ntell; and with one sovereign exception, which is not within my scope\nto-day, it is scarcely possible to trace their survival in the\ninstitutions of later times. Six hundred years before the birth of\nChrist absolutism held unbounded sway. Throughout the East it was\npropped by the unchanging influence of priests and armies. In the West,\nwhere there were no sacred books requiring trained interpreters, the\npriesthood acquired no preponderance, and when the kings were overthrown\ntheir powers passed to aristocracies of birth. What followed, during\nmany generations, was the cruel domination of class over class, the\noppression of the poor by the rich, and of the ignorant by the wise. The\nspirit of that domination found passionate utterance in the verses of\nthe aristocratic poet Theognis, a man of genius and refinement, who\navows that he longed to drink the blood of his political adversaries.\nFrom these oppressors the people of many cities sought deliverance in\nthe less intolerable tyranny of revolutionary usurpers. The remedy gave\nnew shape and energy to the evil. The tyrants were often men of\nsurprising capacity and merit, like some of those who, in the fourteenth\ncentury, made themselves lords of Italian cities; but rights secured by\nequal laws and by sharing power existed nowhere.\n\nFrom this universal degradation the world was rescued by the most gifted\nof the nations. Athens, which like other cities was distracted and\noppressed by a privileged class, avoided violence and appointed Solon to\nrevise its laws. It was the happiest choice that history records. Solon\nwas not only the wisest man to be found in Athens, but the most profound\npolitical genius of antiquity; and the easy, bloodless, and pacific\nrevolution by which he accomplished the deliverance of his country was\nthe first step in a career which our age glories in pursuing, and\ninstituted a power which has done more than anything, except revealed\nreligion, for the regeneration of society. The upper class had possessed\nthe right of making and administering the laws, and he left them in\npossession, only transferring to wealth what had been the privilege of\nbirth. To the rich, who alone had the means of sustaining the burden of\npublic service in taxation and war, Solon gave a share of power\nproportioned to the demands made on their resources. The poorest classes\nwere exempt from direct taxes, but were excluded from office. Solon gave\nthem a voice in electing magistrates from the classes above them, and\nthe right of calling them to account. This concession, apparently so\nslender, was the beginning of a mighty change. It introduced the idea\nthat a man ought to have a voice in selecting those to whose rectitude\nand wisdom he is compelled to trust his fortune, his family, and his\nlife. And this idea completely inverted the notion of human authority,\nfor it inaugurated the reign of moral influence where all political\npower had depended on moral force. Government by consent superseded\ngovernment by compulsion, and the pyramid which had stood on a point was\nmade to stand upon its base. By making every citizen the guardian of his\nown interest Solon admitted the element of Democracy into the State. The\ngreatest glory of a ruler, he said, is to create a popular government.\nBelieving that no man can be entirely trusted, he subjected all who\nexercised power to the vigilant control of those for whom they acted.\n\nThe only resource against political disorders that had been known till\nthen was the concentration of power. Solon undertook to effect the same\nobject by the distribution of power. He gave to the common people as\nmuch influence as he thought them able to employ, that the State might\nbe exempt from arbitrary government. It is the essence of Democracy, he\nsaid, to obey no master but the law. Solon recognised the principle that\npolitical forms are not final or inviolable, and must adapt themselves\nto facts; and he provided so well for the revision of his constitution,\nwithout breach of continuity or loss of stability, that for centuries\nafter his death the Attic orators attributed to him, and quoted by his\nname, the whole structure of Athenian law. The direction of its growth\nwas determined by the fundamental doctrine of Solon, that political\npower ought to be commensurate with public service. In the Persian war\nthe services of the Democracy eclipsed those of the Patrician orders,\nfor the fleet that swept the Asiatics from the Egean Sea was manned by\nthe poorer Athenians. That class, whose valour had saved the State and\nhad preserved European civilisation, had gained a title to increase of\ninfluence and privilege. The offices of State, which had been a monopoly\nof the rich, were thrown open to the poor, and in order to make sure\nthat they should obtain their share, all but the highest commands were\ndistributed by lot.\n\nWhilst the ancient authorities were decaying, there was no accepted\nstandard of moral and political right to make the framework of society\nfast in the midst of change. The instability that had seized on the\nforms threatened the very principles of government. The national beliefs\nwere yielding to doubt, and doubt was not yet making way for knowledge.\nThere had been a time when the obligations of public as well as private\nlife were identified with the will of the gods. But that time had\npassed. Pallas, the ethereal goddess of the Athenians, and the Sun god\nwhose oracles, delivered from the temple between the twin summits of\nParnassus, did so much for the Greek nationality, aided in keeping up a\nlofty ideal of religion; but when the enlightened men of Greece learnt\nto apply their keen faculty of reasoning to the system of their\ninherited belief, they became quickly conscious that the conceptions of\nthe gods corrupted the life and degraded the minds of the public.\nPopular morality could not be sustained by the popular religion. The\nmoral instruction which was no longer supplied by the gods could not yet\nbe found in books. There was no venerable code expounded by experts, no\ndoctrine proclaimed by men of reputed sanctity like those teachers of\nthe far East whose words still rule the fate of nearly half mankind. The\neffort to account for things by close observation and exact reasoning\nbegan by destroying. There came a time when the philosophers of the\nPorch and the Academy wrought the dictates of wisdom and virtue into a\nsystem so consistent and profound that it has vastly shortened the task\nof the Christian divines. But that time had not yet come.\n\nThe epoch of doubt and transition during which the Greeks passed from\nthe dim fancies of mythology to the fierce light of science was the age\nof Pericles, and the endeavour to substitute certain truth for the\nprescriptions of impaired authorities, which was then beginning to\nabsorb the energies of the Greek intellect, is the grandest movement in\nthe profane annals of mankind, for to it we owe, even after the\nimmeasurable progress accomplished by Christianity, much of our\nphilosophy and far the better part of the political knowledge we\npossess. Pericles, who was at the head of the Athenian Government, was\nthe first statesman who encountered the problem which the rapid\nweakening of traditions forced on the political world. No authority in\nmorals or in politics remained unshaken by the motion that was in the\nair. No guide could be confidently trusted; there was no available\ncriterion to appeal to, for the means of controlling or denying\nconvictions that prevailed among the people. The popular sentiment as to\nwhat was right might be mistaken, but it was subject to no test. The\npeople were, for practical purposes, the seat of the knowledge of good\nand evil. The people, therefore, were the seat of power.\n\nThe political philosophy of Pericles consisted of this conclusion. He\nresolutely struck away all the props that still sustained the artificial\npreponderance of wealth. For the ancient doctrine that power goes with\nland, he introduced the idea that power ought to be so equitably\ndiffused as to afford equal security to all. That one part of the\ncommunity should govern the whole, or that one class should make laws\nfor another, he declared to be tyrannical. The abolition of privilege\nwould have served only to transfer the supremacy from the rich to the\npoor, if Pericles had not redressed the balance by restricting the right\nof citizenship to Athenians of pure descent. By this measure the class\nwhich formed what we should call the third estate was brought down to\n14,000 citizens, and became about equal in numbers with the higher\nranks. Pericles held that every Athenian who neglected to take his part\nin the public business inflicted an injury on the commonwealth. That\nnone might be excluded by poverty, he caused the poor to be paid for\ntheir attendance out of the funds of the State; for his administration\nof the federal tribute had brought together a treasure of more than two\nmillion sterling. The instrument of his sway was the art of speaking. He\ngoverned by persuasion. Everything was decided by argument in open\ndeliberation, and every influence bowed before the ascendency of mind.\nThe idea that the object of constitutions is not to confirm the\npredominance of any interest, but to prevent it; to preserve with equal\ncare the independence of labour and the security of property; to make\nthe rich safe against envy, and the poor against oppression, marks the\nhighest level attained by the statesmanship of Greece. It hardly\nsurvived the great patriot who conceived it; and all history has been\noccupied with the endeavour to upset the balance of power by giving the\nadvantage to money, land, or numbers. A generation followed that has\nnever been equalled in talent--a generation of men whose works, in\npoetry and eloquence, are still the envy of the world, and in history,\nphilosophy, and politics remain unsurpassed. But it produced no\nsuccessor to Pericles, and no man was able to wield the sceptre that\nfell from his hand.\n\nIt was a momentous step in the progress of nations when the principle\nthat every interest should have the right and the means of asserting\nitself was adopted by the Athenian Constitution. But for those who were\nbeaten in the vote there was no redress. The law did not check the\ntriumph of majorities or rescue the minority from the dire penalty of\nhaving been outnumbered. When the overwhelming influence of Pericles was\nremoved, the conflict between classes raged without restraint, and the\nslaughter that befell the higher ranks in the Peloponnesian war gave an\nirresistible preponderance to the lower. The restless and inquiring\nspirit of the Athenians was prompt to unfold the reason of every\ninstitution and the consequences of every principle, and their\nConstitution ran its course from infancy to decrepitude with unexampled\nspeed.\n\nTwo men's lives span the interval from the first admission of popular\ninfluence, under Solon, to the downfall of the State. Their history\nfurnishes the classic example of the peril of Democracy under conditions\nsingularly favourable. For the Athenians were not only brave and\npatriotic and capable of generous sacrifice, but they were the most\nreligious of the Greeks. They venerated the Constitution which had given\nthem prosperity, and equality, and freedom, and never questioned the\nfundamental laws which regulated the enormous power of the Assembly.\nThey tolerated considerable variety of opinion and great licence of\nspeech; and their humanity towards their slaves roused the indignation\neven of the most intelligent partisan of aristocracy. Thus they became\nthe only people of antiquity that grew great by democratic institutions.\nBut the possession of unlimited power, which corrodes the conscience,\nhardens the heart, and confounds the understanding of monarchs,\nexercised its demoralising influence on the illustrious democracy of\nAthens. It is bad to be oppressed by a minority, but it is worse to be\noppressed by a majority. For there is a reserve of latent power in the\nmasses which, if it is called into play, the minority can seldom resist.\nBut from the absolute will of an entire people there is no appeal, no\nredemption, no refuge but treason. The humblest and most numerous class\nof the Athenians united the legislative, the judicial, and, in part, the\nexecutive power. The philosophy that was then in the ascendant taught\nthem that there is no law superior to that of the State--the lawgiver is\nabove the law.\n\nIt followed that the sovereign people had a right to do whatever was\nwithin its power, and was bound by no rule of right or wrong but its own\njudgment of expediency. On a memorable occasion the assembled Athenians\ndeclared it monstrous that they should be prevented from doing whatever\nthey chose. No force that existed could restrain them; and they resolved\nthat no duty should restrain them, and that they would be bound by no\nlaws that were not of their own making. In this way the emancipated\npeople of Athens became a tyrant; and their Government, the pioneer of\nEuropean freedom, stands condemned with a terrible unanimity by all the\nwisest of the ancients. They ruined their city by attempting to conduct\nwar by debate in the marketplace. Like the French Republic, they put\ntheir unsuccessful commanders to death. They treated their dependencies\nwith such injustice that they lost their maritime Empire. They plundered\nthe rich until the rich conspired with the public enemy, and they\ncrowned their guilt by the martyrdom of Socrates.\n\nWhen the absolute sway of numbers had endured for near a quarter of a\ncentury, nothing but bare existence was left for the State to lose; and\nthe Athenians, wearied and despondent, confessed the true cause of their\nruin. They understood that for liberty, justice, and equal laws, it is\nas necessary that Democracy should restrain itself as it had been that\nit should restrain the Oligarchy. They resolved to take their stand once\nmore upon the ancient ways, and to restore the order of things which had\nsubsisted when the monopoly of power had been taken from the rich and\nhad not been acquired by the poor. After a first restoration had failed,\nwhich is only memorable because Thucydides, whose judgment in politics\nis never at fault, pronounced it the best Government Athens had enjoyed,\nthe attempt was renewed with more experience and greater singleness of\npurpose. The hostile parties were reconciled, and proclaimed an\namnesty, the first in history. They resolved to govern by concurrence.\nThe laws, which had the sanction of tradition, were reduced to a code;\nand no act of the sovereign assembly was valid with which they might be\nfound to disagree. Between the sacred lines of the Constitution which\nwere to remain inviolate, and the decrees which met from time to time\nthe needs and notions of the day, a broad distinction was drawn; and the\nfabric of a law which had been the work of generations was made\nindependent of momentary variations in the popular will. The repentance\nof the Athenians came too late to save the Republic. But the lesson of\ntheir experience endures for all times, for it teaches that government\nby the whole people, being the government of the most numerous and most\npowerful class, is an evil of the same nature as unmixed monarchy, and\nrequires, for nearly the same reasons, institutions that shall protect\nit against itself, and shall uphold the permanent reign of law against\narbitrary revolutions of opinion.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nParallel with the rise and fall of Athenian freedom, Rome was employed\nin working out the same problems, with greater constructive sense, and\ngreater temporary success, but ending at last in a far more terrible\ncatastrophe. That which among the ingenious Athenians had been a\ndevelopment carried forward by the spell of plausible argument, was in\nRome a conflict between rival forces. Speculative politics had no\nattraction for the grim and practical genius of the Romans. They did not\nconsider what would be the cleverest way of getting over a difficulty,\nbut what way was indicated by analogous cases; and they assigned less\ninfluence to the impulse and spirit of the moment, than to precedent and\nexample. Their peculiar character prompted them to ascribe the origin of\ntheir laws to early times, and in their desire to justify the continuity\nof their institutions, and to get rid of the reproach of innovation,\nthey imagined the legendary history of the kings of Rome. The energy of\ntheir adherence to traditions made their progress slow, they advanced\nonly under compulsion of almost unavoidable necessity, and the same\nquestions recurred often, before they were settled. The constitutional\nhistory of the Republic turns on the endeavours of the aristocracy, who\nclaimed to be the only true Romans, to retain in their hands the power\nthey had wrested from the kings, and of the plebeians to get an equal\nshare in it. And this controversy, which the eager and restless\nAthenians went through in one generation, lasted for more than two\ncenturies, from a time when the _plebs_ were excluded from the\ngovernment of the city, and were taxed, and made to serve without pay,\nuntil, in the year 286, they were admitted to political equality. Then\nfollowed one hundred and fifty years of unexampled prosperity and glory;\nand then, out of the original conflict which had been compromised, if\nnot theoretically settled, a new struggle arose which was without an\nissue.\n\nThe mass of poorer families, impoverished by incessant service in war,\nwere reduced to dependence on an aristocracy of about two thousand\nwealthy men, who divided among themselves the immense domain of the\nState. When the need became intense the Gracchi tried to relieve it by\ninducing the richer classes to allot some share in the public lands to\nthe common people. The old and famous aristocracy of birth and rank had\nmade a stubborn resistance, but it knew the art of yielding. The later\nand more selfish aristocracy was unable to learn it. The character of\nthe people was changed by the sterner motives of dispute. The fight for\npolitical power had been carried on with the moderation which is so\nhonourable a quality of party contests in England. But the struggle for\nthe objects of material existence grew to be as ferocious as civil\ncontroversies in France. Repulsed by the rich, after a struggle of\ntwenty-two years, the people, three hundred and twenty thousand of whom\ndepended on public rations for food, were ready to follow any man who\npromised to obtain for them by revolution what they could not obtain by\nlaw.\n\nFor a time the Senate, representing the ancient and threatened order of\nthings, was strong enough to overcome every popular leader that arose,\nuntil Julius Caesar, supported by an army which he had led in an\nunparalleled career of conquest, and by the famished masses which he won\nby his lavish liberality, and skilled beyond all other men in the art of\ngoverning, converted the Republic into a Monarchy by a series of\nmeasures that were neither violent nor injurious.\n\nThe Empire preserved the Republican forms until the reign of Diocletian;\nbut the will of the Emperors was as uncontrolled as that of the people\nhad been after the victory of the Tribunes. Their power was arbitrary\neven when it was most wisely employed, and yet the Roman Empire rendered\ngreater services to the cause of liberty than the Roman Republic. I do\nnot mean by reason of the temporary accident that there were emperors\nwho made good use of their immense opportunities, such as Nerva, of whom\nTacitus says that he combined monarchy and liberty, things otherwise\nincompatible; or that the Empire was what its panegyrists declared it,\nthe perfection of Democracy. In truth it was at best an ill-disguised\nand odious despotism. But Frederic the Great was a despot; yet he was a\nfriend to toleration and free discussion. The Bonapartes were despotic;\nyet no liberal ruler was ever more acceptable to the masses of the\npeople than the First Napoleon, after he had destroyed the Republic, in\n1805, and the Third Napoleon at the height of his power in 1859. In the\nsame way, the Roman Empire possessed merits which, at a distance, and\nespecially at a great distance of time, concern men more deeply than the\ntragic tyranny which was felt in the neighbourhood of the Palace. The\npoor had what they had demanded in vain of the Republic. The rich fared\nbetter than during the Triumvirate. The rights of Roman citizens were\nextended to the people of the provinces. To the imperial epoch belong\nthe better part of Roman literature and nearly the entire Civil Law; and\nit was the Empire that mitigated slavery, instituted religious\ntoleration, made a beginning of the law of nations, and created a\nperfect system of the law of property. The Republic which Caesar\noverthrew had been anything but a free State. It provided admirable\nsecurities for the rights of citizens; it treated with savage disregard\nthe rights of men; and allowed the free Roman to inflict atrocious\nwrongs on his children, on debtors and dependants, on prisoners and\nslaves. Those deeper ideas of right and duty, which are not found on the\ntables of municipal law, but with which the generous minds of Greece\nwere conversant, were held of little account, and the philosophy which\ndealt with such speculations was repeatedly proscribed, as a teacher of\nsedition and impiety.\n\nAt length, in the year 155, the Athenian philosopher Carneades appeared\nat Rome, on a political mission. During an interval of official business\nhe delivered two public orations, to give the unlettered conquerors of\nhis country a taste of the disputations that flourished in the Attic\nschools. On the first day he discoursed of natural justice. On the next\nhe denied its existence, arguing that all our notions of good and evil\nare derived from positive enactment. From the time of that memorable\ndisplay, the genius of the vanquished held its conquerors in thrall. The\nmost eminent of the public men of Rome, such as Scipio and Cicero,\nformed their minds on Grecian models, and her jurists underwent the\nrigorous discipline of Zeno and Chrysippus.\n\nIf, drawing the limit in the second century, when the influence of\nChristianity becomes perceptible, we should form our judgment of the\npolitics of antiquity by its actual legislation, our estimate would be\nlow. The prevailing notions of freedom were imperfect, and the\nendeavours to realise them were wide of the mark. The ancients\nunderstood the regulation of power better than the regulation of\nliberty. They concentrated so many prerogatives in the State as to leave\nno footing from which a man could deny its jurisdiction or assign bounds\nto its activity. If I may employ an expressive anachronism, the vice of\nthe classic State was that it was both Church and State in one. Morality\nwas undistinguished from religion and politics from morals; and in\nreligion, morality, and politics there was only one legislator and one\nauthority. The State, while it did deplorably little for education, for\npractical science, for the indigent and helpless, or for the spiritual\nneeds of man, nevertheless claimed the use of all his faculties and the\ndetermination of all his duties. Individuals and families, associations\nand dependencies were so much material that the sovereign power consumed\nfor its own purposes. What the slave was in the hands of his master, the\ncitizen was in the hands of the community. The most sacred obligations\nvanished before the public advantage. The passengers existed for the\nsake of the ship. By their disregard for private interests, and for the\nmoral welfare and improvement of the people, both Greece and Rome\ndestroyed the vital elements on which the prosperity of nations rests,\nand perished by the decay of families and the depopulation of the\ncountry. They survive not in their institutions, but in their ideas, and\nby their ideas, especially on the art of government, they are--\n\nThe dead, but sceptred sovereigns who still rule\nOur spirits from their urns.\n\nTo them, indeed, may be tracked nearly all the errors that are\nundermining political society--Communism, Utilitarianism, the confusion\nbetween tyranny and authority, and between lawlessness and freedom.\n\nThe notion that men lived originally in a state of nature, by violence\nand without laws, is due to Critias. Communism in its grossest form was\nrecommended by Diogenes of Sinope. According to the Sophists, there is\nno duty above expediency and no virtue apart from pleasure. Laws are an\ninvention of weak men to rob their betters of the reasonable enjoyment\nof their superiority. It is better to inflict than to suffer wrong; and\nas there is no greater good than to do evil without fear of retribution,\nso there is no worse evil than to suffer without the consolation of\nrevenge. Justice is the mask of a craven spirit; injustice is worldly\nwisdom; and duty, obedience, self-denial are the impostures of\nhypocrisy. Government is absolute, and may ordain what it pleases, and\nno subject can complain that it does him wrong, but as long as he can\nescape compulsion and punishment, he is always free to disobey.\nHappiness consists in obtaining power and in eluding the necessity of\nobedience; and he that gains a throne by perfidy and murder, deserves to\nbe truly envied.\n\nEpicurus differed but little from the propounders of the code of\nrevolutionary despotism. All societies, he said, are founded on contract\nfor mutual protection. Good and evil are conventional terms, for the\nthunderbolts of heaven fall alike on the just and the unjust. The\nobjection to wrongdoing is not the act, but in its consequences to the\nwrongdoer. Wise men contrive laws, not to bind, but to protect\nthemselves; and when they prove to be unprofitable they cease to be\nvalid. The illiberal sentiments of even the most illustrious\nmetaphysicians are disclosed in the saying of Aristotle, that the mark\nof the worst governments is that they leave men free to live as they\nplease.\n\nIf you will bear in mind that Socrates, the best of the pagans, knew of\nno higher criterion for men, of no better guide of conduct, than the\nlaws of each country; that Plato, whose sublime doctrine was so near an\nanticipation of Christianity that celebrated theologians wished his\nworks to be forbidden, lest men should be content with them, and\nindifferent to any higher dogma--to whom was granted that prophetic\nvision of the Just Man, accused, condemned and scourged, and dying on a\nCross--nevertheless employed the most splendid intellect ever bestowed\non man to advocate the abolition of the family and the exposure of\ninfants; that Aristotle, the ablest moralist of antiquity, saw no harm\nin making raids upon a neighbouring people, for the sake of reducing\nthem to slavery--still more, if you will consider that, among the\nmoderns, men of genius equal to these have held political doctrines not\nless criminal or absurd--it will be apparent to you how stubborn a\nphalanx of error blocks the paths of truth; that pure reason is as\npowerless as custom to solve the problem of free government; that it\ncan only be the fruit of long, manifold, and painful experience; and\nthat the tracing of the methods by which divine wisdom has educated the\nnations to appreciate and to assume the duties of freedom, is not the\nleast part of that true philosophy that studies to\n\n                  Assert eternal Providence,\n   And justify the ways of God to men.\n\nBut, having sounded the depth of their errors, I should give you a very\ninadequate idea of the wisdom of the ancients if I allowed it to appear\nthat their precepts were no better than their practice. While statesmen\nand senates and popular assemblies supplied examples of every\ndescription of blunder, a noble literature arose, in which a priceless\ntreasure of political knowledge was stored, and in which the defects of\nthe existing institutions were exposed with unsparing sagacity. The\npoint on which the ancients were most nearly unanimous is the right of\nthe people to govern, and their inability to govern alone. To meet this\ndifficulty, to give to the popular element a full share without a\nmonopoly of power, they adopted very generally the theory of a mixed\nConstitution. They differed from our notion of the same thing, because\nmodern Constitutions have been a device for limiting monarchy; with them\nthey were invented to curb democracy. The idea arose in the time of\nPlato--though he repelled it--when the early monarchies and oligarchies\nhad vanished, and it continued to be cherished long after all\ndemocracies had been absorbed in the Roman Empire. But whereas a\nsovereign prince who surrenders part of his authority yields to the\nargument of superior force, a sovereign people relinquishing its own\nprerogative succumbs to the influence of reason. And it has in all times\nproved more easy to create limitations by the use of force than by\npersuasion.\n\nThe ancient writers saw very clearly that each principle of government\nstanding alone is carried to excess and provokes a reaction. Monarchy\nhardens into despotism. Aristocracy contracts into oligarchy. Democracy\nexpands into the supremacy of numbers. They therefore imagined that to\nrestrain each element by combining it with the others would avert the\nnatural process of self-destruction, and endow the State with perpetual\nyouth. But this harmony of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy blended\ntogether, which was the ideal of many writers, and which they supposed\nto be exhibited by Sparta, by Carthage, and by Rome, was a chimera of\nphilosophers never realised by antiquity. At last Tacitus, wiser than\nthe rest, confessed that the mixed Constitution, however admirable in\ntheory, was difficult to establish and impossible to maintain. His\ndisheartening avowal is not disowned by later experience.\n\nThe experiment has been tried more often than I can tell, with a\ncombination of resources that were unknown to the ancients--with\nChristianity, parliamentary government, and a free press. Yet there is\nno example of such a balanced Constitution having lasted a century. If\nit has succeeded anywhere it has been in our favoured country and in our\ntime; and we know not yet how long the wisdom of the nation will\npreserve the equipoise. The Federal check was as familiar to the\nancients as the Constitutional. For the type of all their Republics was\nthe government of a city by its own inhabitants meeting in the public\nplace. An administration embracing many cities was known to them only in\nthe form of the oppression which Sparta exercised over the Messenians,\nAthens over her Confederates, and Rome over Italy. The resources which,\nin modern times, enabled a great people to govern itself through a\nsingle centre did not exist. Equality could be preserved only by\nFederalism; and it occurs more often amongst them than in the modern\nworld. If the distribution of power among the several parts of the State\nis the most efficient restraint on monarchy, the distribution of power\namong several States is the best check on democracy. By multiplying\ncentres of government and discussion it promotes the diffusion of\npolitical knowledge and the maintenance of healthy and independent\nopinion. It is the protectorate of minorities, and the consecration of\nself-government. But although it must be enumerated among the better\nachievements of practical genius in antiquity, it arose from necessity,\nand its properties were imperfectly investigated in theory.\n\nWhen the Greeks began to reflect on the problems of society, they first\nof all accepted things as they were, and did their best to explain and\ndefend them. Inquiry, which with us is stimulated by doubt, began with\nthem in wonder. The most illustrious of the early philosophers,\nPythagoras, promulgated a theory for the preservation of political power\nin the educated class, and ennobled a form of government which was\ngenerally founded on popular ignorance and on strong class interests. He\npreached authority and subordination, and dwelt more on duties than on\nrights, on religion than on policy; and his system perished in the\nrevolution by which oligarchies were swept away. The revolution\nafterwards developed its own philosophy, whose excesses I have\ndescribed.\n\nBut between the two eras, between the rigid didactics of the early\nPythagoreans and the dissolving theories of Protagoras, a philosopher\narose who stood aloof from both extremes, and whose difficult sayings\nwere never really understood or valued until our time. Heraclitus, of\nEphesus, deposited his book in the temple of Diana. The book has\nperished, like the temple and the worship, but its fragments have been\ncollected and interpreted with incredible ardour, by the scholars, the\ndivines, the philosophers, and politicians who have been engaged the\nmost intensely in the toil and stress of this century. The most renowned\nlogician of the last century adopted every one of his propositions; and\nthe most brilliant agitator among Continental Socialists composed a work\nof eight hundred and forty pages to celebrate his memory.\n\nHeraclitus complained that the masses were deaf to truth, and knew not\nthat one good man counts for more than thousands; but he held the\nexisting order in no superstitious reverence. Strife, he says, is the\nsource and the master of all things. Life is perpetual motion, and\nrepose is death. No man can plunge twice into the same current, for it\nis always flowing and passing, and is never the same. The only thing\nfixed and certain in the midst of change is the universal and sovereign\nreason, which all men may not perceive, but which is common to all. Laws\nare sustained by no human authority, but by virtue of their derivation\nfrom the one law that is divine. These sayings, which recall the grand\noutlines of political truth which we have found in the Sacred Books, and\ncarry us forward to the latest teaching of our most enlightened\ncontemporaries, would bear a good deal of elucidation and comment.\nHeraclitus is, unfortunately, so obscure that Socrates could not\nunderstand him, and I won't pretend to have succeeded better.\n\nIf the topic of my address was the history of political science, the\nhighest and the largest place would belong to Plato and Aristotle. The\n_Laws_ of the one, the _Politics_ of the other, are, if I may trust my\nown experience, the books from which we may learn the most about the\nprinciples of politics. The penetration with which those great masters\nof thought analysed the institutions of Greece, and exposed their vices,\nis not surpassed by anything in later literature; by Burke or Hamilton,\nthe best political writers of the last century; by Tocqueville or\nRoscher, the most eminent of our own. But Plato and Aristotle were\nphilosophers, studious not of unguided freedom, but of intelligent\ngovernment. They saw the disastrous effects of ill-directed striving for\nliberty; and they resolved that it was better not to strive for it, but\nto be content with a strong administration, prudently adapted to make\nmen prosperous and happy.\n\nNow liberty and good government do not exclude each other; and there are\nexcellent reasons why they should go together. Liberty is not a means to\na higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. It is\nnot for the sake of a good public administration that it is required,\nbut for security in the pursuit of the highest objects of civil society,\nand of private life. Increase of freedom in the State may sometimes\npromote mediocrity, and give vitality to prejudice; it may even retard\nuseful legislation, diminish the capacity for war, and restrict the\nboundaries of Empire. It might be plausibly argued that, if many things\nwould be worse in England or Ireland under an intelligent despotism,\nsome things would be managed better; that the Roman Government was more\nenlightened under Augustus and Antoninus than under the Senate, in the\ndays of Marius or of Pompey. A generous spirit prefers that his country\nshould be poor, and weak, and of no account, but free, rather than\npowerful, prosperous, and enslaved. It is better to be the citizen of a\nhumble commonwealth in the Alps, without a prospect of influence beyond\nthe narrow frontier, than a subject of the superb autocracy that\novershadows half of Asia and of Europe. But it may be urged, on the\nother side, that liberty is not the sum or the substitute of all the\nthings men ought to live for; that to be real it must be circumscribed,\nand that the limits of circumscription vary; that advancing civilisation\ninvests the State with increased rights and duties, and imposes\nincreased burdens and constraint on the subject; that a highly\ninstructed and intelligent community may perceive the benefit of\ncompulsory obligations which, at a lower stage, would be thought\nunbearable; that liberal progress is not vague or indefinite, but aims\nat a point where the public is subject to no restrictions but those of\nwhich it feels the advantage; that a free country may be less capable of\ndoing much for the advancement of religion, the prevention of vice, or\nthe relief of suffering, than one that does not shrink from confronting\ngreat emergencies by some sacrifice of individual rights, and some\nconcentration of power; and that the supreme political object ought to\nbe sometimes postponed to still higher moral objects. My argument\ninvolves no collision with these qualifying reflections. We are dealing,\nnot with the effects of freedom, but with its causes. We are seeking out\nthe influences which brought arbitrary government under control, either\nby the diffusion of power, or by the appeal to an authority which\ntranscends all government, and among those influences the greatest\nphilosophers of Greece have no claim to be reckoned.\n\nIt is the Stoics who emancipated mankind from its subjugation to\ndespotic rule, and whose enlightened and elevated views of life bridged\nthe chasm that separates the ancient from the Christian state, and led\nthe way to freedom. Seeing how little security there is that the laws of\nany land shall be wise or just, and that the unanimous will of a people\nand the assent of nations are liable to err, the Stoics looked beyond\nthose narrow barriers, and above those inferior sanctions, for the\nprinciples that ought to regulate the lives of men and the existence of\nsociety. They made it known that there is a will superior to the\ncollective will of man, and a law that overrules those of Solon and\nLycurgus. Their test of good government is its conformity to principles\nthat can be traced to a higher legislator. That which we must obey, that\nto which we are bound to reduce all civil authorities, and to sacrifice\nevery earthly interest, is that immutable law which is perfect and\neternal as God Himself, which proceeds from His nature, and reigns over\nheaven and earth and over all the nations.\n\nThe great question is to discover, not what governments prescribe, but\nwhat they ought to prescribe; for no prescription is valid against the\nconscience of mankind. Before God, there is neither Greek nor barbarian,\nneither rich nor poor, and the slave is as good as his master, for by\nbirth all men are free; they are citizens of that universal commonwealth\nwhich embraces all the world, brethren of one family, and children of\nGod. The true guide of our conduct is no outward authority, but the\nvoice of God, who comes down to dwell in our souls, who knows all our\nthoughts, to whom are owing all the truth we know, and all the good we\ndo; for vice is voluntary, and virtue comes from the grace of the\nheavenly spirit within.\n\nWhat the teaching of that divine voice is, the philosophers who had\nimbibed the sublime ethics of the Porch went on to expound: It is not\nenough to act up to the written law, or to give all men their due; we\nought to give them more than their due, to be generous and beneficent,\nto devote ourselves for the good of others, seeking our reward in\nself-denial and sacrifice, acting from the motive of sympathy and not of\npersonal advantage. Therefore we must treat others as we wish to be\ntreated by them, and must persist until death in doing good to our\nenemies, regardless of unworthiness and ingratitude. For we must be at\nwar with evil, but at peace with men, and it is better to suffer than to\ncommit injustice. True freedom, says the most eloquent of the Stoics,\nconsists in obeying God. A State governed by such principles as these\nwould have been free far beyond the measure of Greek or Roman freedom;\nfor they open a door to religious toleration, and close it against\nslavery. Neither conquest nor purchase, said Zeno, can make one man the\nproperty of another.\n\nThese doctrines were adopted and applied by the great jurists of the\nEmpire. The law of nature, they said, is superior to the written law,\nand slavery contradicts the law of nature. Men have no right to do what\nthey please with their own, or to make profit out of another's loss.\nSuch is the political wisdom of the ancients, touching the foundations\nof liberty, as we find it in its highest development, in Cicero, and\nSeneca, and Philo, a Jew of Alexandria. Their writings impress upon us\nthe greatness of the work of preparation for the Gospel which had been\naccomplished among men on the eve of the mission of the Apostles. St.\nAugustine, after quoting Seneca, exclaims: \"What more could a Christian\nsay than this Pagan has said?\" The enlightened pagans had reached nearly\nthe last point attainable without a new dispensation, when the fulness\nof time was come. We have seen the breadth and the splendour of the\ndomain of Hellenic thought, and it has brought us to the threshold of a\ngreater kingdom. The best of the later classics speak almost the\nlanguage of Christianity, and they border on its spirit.\n\nBut in all that I have been able to cite from classical literature,\nthree things are wanting,--representative government, the emancipation\nof the slaves, and liberty of conscience. There were, it is true,\ndeliberative assemblies, chosen by the people; and confederate cities,\nof which, both in Asia and Africa, there were so many leagues, sent\ntheir delegates to sit in Federal Councils. But government by an elected\nParliament was even in theory a thing unknown. It is congruous with the\nnature of Polytheism to admit some measure of toleration. And Socrates,\nwhen he avowed that he must obey God rather than the Athenians, and the\nStoics, when they set the wise man above the law, were very near giving\nutterance to the principle. But it was first proclaimed and established\nby enactment, not in polytheistic and philosophical Greece, but in\nIndia, by Asoka, the earliest of the Buddhist kings, two hundred and\nfifty years before the birth of Christ.\n\nSlavery has been, far more than intolerance, the perpetual curse and\nreproach of ancient civilisation, and although its rightfulness was\ndisputed as early as the days of Aristotle, and was implicitly, if not\ndefinitely, denied by several Stoics, the moral philosophy of the Greeks\nand Romans, as well as their practice, pronounced decidedly in its\nfavour. But there was one extraordinary people who, in this as in other\nthings, anticipated the purer precept that was to come. Philo of\nAlexandria is one of the writers whose views on society were most\nadvanced. He applauds not only liberty but equality in the enjoyment of\nwealth. He believes that a limited democracy, purged of its grosser\nelements, is the most perfect government, and will extend itself\ngradually over all the world. By freedom he understood the following of\nGod. Philo, though he required that the condition of the slave should be\nmade compatible with the wants and claims of his higher nature, did not\nabsolutely condemn slavery. But he has put on record the customs of the\nEssenes of Palestine, a people who, uniting the wisdom of the Gentiles\nwith the faith of the Jews, led lives which were uncontaminated by the\nsurrounding civilisation, and were the first to reject slavery both in\nprinciple and practice. They formed a religious community rather than a\nState, and their numbers did not exceed 4000. But their example\ntestifies to how great a height religious men were able to raise their\nconception of society even without the succour of the New Testament, and\naffords the strongest condemnation of their contemporaries.\n\nThis, then, is the conclusion to which our survey brings us: There is\nhardly a truth in politics or in the system of the rights of man that\nwas not grasped by the wisest of the Gentiles and the Jews, or that they\ndid not declare with a refinement of thought and a nobleness of\nexpression that later writers could never surpass. I might go on for\nhours, reciting to you passages on the law of nature and the duties of\nman, so solemn and religious that though they come from the profane\ntheatre on the Acropolis, and from the Roman Forum, you would deem that\nyou were listening to the hymns of Christian Churches and the discourse\nof ordained divines. But although the maxims of the great classic\nteachers, of Sophocles, and Plato, and Seneca, and the glorious examples\nof public virtue were in the mouths of all men, there was no power in\nthem to avert the doom of that civilisation for which the blood of so\nmany patriots and the genius of such incomparable writers had been\nwasted in vain. The liberties of the ancient nations were crushed\nbeneath a hopeless and inevitable despotism, and their vitality was\nspent, when the new power came forth from Galilee, giving what was\nwanting to the efficacy of human knowledge to redeem societies as well\nas men.\n\nIt would be presumptuous if I attempted to indicate the numberless\nchannels by which Christian influence gradually penetrated the State.\nThe first striking phenomenon is the slowness with which an action\ndestined to be so prodigious became manifest. Going forth to all\nnations, in many stages of civilisation and under almost every form of\ngovernment, Christianity had none of the character of a political\napostolate, and in its absorbing mission to individuals did not\nchallenge public authority. The early Christians avoided contact with\nthe State, abstained from the responsibilities of office, and were even\nreluctant to serve in the army. Cherishing their citizenship of a\nkingdom not of this world, they despaired of an empire which seemed too\npowerful to be resisted and too corrupt to be converted, whose\ninstitutions, the work and the pride of untold centuries of paganism,\ndrew their sanctions from the gods whom the Christians accounted devils,\nwhich plunged its hands from age to age in the blood of martyrs, and was\nbeyond the hope of regeneration and foredoomed to perish. They were so\nmuch overawed as to imagine that the fall of the State would be the end\nof the Church and of the world, and no man dreamed of the boundless\nfuture of spiritual and social influence that awaited their religion\namong the race of destroyers that were bringing the empire of Augustus\nand of Constantine to humiliation and ruin. The duties of government\nwere less in their thoughts than the private virtues and duties of\nsubjects; and it was long before they became aware of the burden of\npower in their faith. Down almost to the time of Chrysostom, they shrank\nfrom contemplating the obligation to emancipate the slaves.\n\nAlthough the doctrine of self-reliance and self-denial, which is the\nfoundation of political economy, was written as legibly in the New\nTestament as in the _Wealth of Nations_, it was not recognised until our\nage. Tertullian boasts of the passive obedience of the Christians.\nMelito writes to a pagan Emperor as if he were incapable of giving an\nunjust command; and in Christian times Optatus thought that whoever\npresumed to find fault with his sovereign exalted himself almost to the\nlevel of a god. But this political quietism was not universal. Origen,\nthe ablest writer of early times, spoke with approval of conspiring for\nthe destruction of tyranny.\n\nAfter the fourth century the declarations against slavery are earnest\nand continual. And in a theological but yet pregnant sense, divines of\nthe second century insist on liberty, and divines of the fourth century\non equality. There was one essential and inevitable transformation in\npolitics. Popular governments had existed, and also mixed and federal\ngovernments, but there had been no limited government, no State the\ncircumference of whose authority had been defined by a force external to\nits own. That was the great problem which philosophy had raised, and\nwhich no statesmanship had been able to solve. Those who proclaimed the\nassistance of a higher authority had indeed drawn a metaphysical barrier\nbefore the governments, but they had not known how to make it real. All\nthat Socrates could effect by way of protest against the tyranny of the\nreformed democracy was to die for his convictions. The Stoics could only\nadvise the wise man to hold aloof from politics, keeping the unwritten\nlaw in his heart. But when Christ said: \"Render unto Caesar the things\nthat are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's,\" those words,\nspoken on His last visit to the Temple, three days before His death,\ngave to the civil power, under the protection of conscience, a\nsacredness it had never enjoyed, and bounds it had never acknowledged;\nand they were the repudiation of absolutism and the inauguration of\nfreedom. For our Lord not only delivered the precept, but created the\nforce to execute it. To maintain the necessary immunity in one supreme\nsphere, to reduce all political authority within defined limits, ceased\nto be an aspiration of patient reasoners, and was made the perpetual\ncharge and care of the most energetic institution and the most universal\nassociation in the world. The new law, the new spirit, the new\nauthority, gave to liberty a meaning and a value it had not possessed in\nthe philosophy or in the constitution of Greece or Rome before the\nknowledge of the truth that makes us free.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 2: An address delivered to the members of the Bridgnorth\nInstitution at the Agricultural Hall, 26th February 1877.]\n\n\n\n\nII\n\nTHE HISTORY OF FREEDOM IN CHRISTIANITY[3]\n\n\nWhen Constantine the Great carried the seat of empire from Rome to\nConstantinople he set up in the marketplace of the new capital a\nporphyry pillar which had come from Egypt, and of which a strange tale\nis told. In a vault beneath he secretly buried the seven sacred emblems\nof the Roman State, which were guarded by the virgins in the temple of\nVesta, with the fire that might never be quenched. On the summit he\nraised a statue of Apollo, representing himself, and enclosing a\nfragment of the Cross; and he crowned it with a diadem of rays\nconsisting of the nails employed at the Crucifixion, which his mother\nwas believed to have found at Jerusalem.\n\nThe pillar still stands, the most significant monument that exists of\nthe converted empire; for the notion that the nails which had pierced\nthe body of Christ became a fit ornament for a heathen idol as soon as\nit was called by the name of a living emperor indicates the position\ndesigned for Christianity in the imperial structure of Constantine.\nDiocletian's attempt to transform the Roman Government into a despotism\nof the Eastern type had brought on the last and most serious persecution\nof the Christians; and Constantine, in adopting their faith, intended\nneither to abandon his predecessor's scheme of policy nor to renounce\nthe fascinations of arbitrary authority, but to strengthen his throne\nwith the support of a religion which had astonished the world by its\npower of resistance, and to obtain that support absolutely and without a\ndrawback he fixed the seat of his government in the East, with a\npatriarch of his own creation.\n\nNobody warned him that by promoting the Christian religion he was tying\none of his hands, and surrendering the prerogative of the Caesars. As the\nacknowledged author of the liberty and superiority of the Church, he was\nappealed to as the guardian of her unity. He admitted the obligation; he\naccepted the trust; and the divisions that prevailed among the\nChristians supplied his successors with many opportunities of extending\nthat protectorate, and preventing any reduction of the claims or of the\nresources of imperialism.\n\nConstantine declared his own will equivalent to a canon of the Church.\nAccording to Justinian, the Roman people had formally transferred to the\nemperors the entire plenitude of its authority, and, therefore, the\nEmperor's pleasure, expressed by edict or by letter, had force of law.\nEven in the fervent age of its conversion the Empire employed its\nrefined civilisation, the accumulated wisdom of ancient sages, the\nreasonableness and subtlety of Roman law, and the entire inheritance of\nthe Jewish, the Pagan, and the Christian world, to make the Church serve\nas a gilded crutch of absolutism. Neither an enlightened philosophy, nor\nall the political wisdom of Rome, nor even the faith and virtue of the\nChristians availed against the incorrigible tradition of antiquity.\nSomething was wanted beyond all the gifts of reflection and\nexperience--a faculty of self-government and self-control, developed\nlike its language in the fibre of a nation, and growing with its growth.\nThis vital element, which many centuries of warfare, of anarchy, of\noppression had extinguished in the countries that were still draped in\nthe pomp of ancient civilisation, was deposited on the soil of\nChristendom by the fertilising stream of migration that overthrew the\nempire of the West.\n\nIn the height of their power the Romans became aware of a race of men\nthat had not abdicated freedom in the hands of a monarch; and the ablest\nwriter of the empire pointed to them with a vague and bitter feeling\nthat, to the institutions of these barbarians, not yet crushed by\ndespotism, the future of the world belonged. Their kings, when they had\nkings, did not preside at their councils; they were sometimes elective;\nthey were sometimes deposed; and they were bound by oath to act in\nobedience with the general wish. They enjoyed real authority only in\nwar. This primitive Republicanism, which admits monarchy as an\noccasional incident, but holds fast to the collective supremacy of all\nfree men, of the constituent authority over all constituted authorities,\nis the remote germ of Parliamentary government. The action of the State\nwas confined to narrow limits; but, besides his position as head of the\nState, the king was surrounded by a body of followers attached to him by\npersonal or political ties. In these, his immediate dependants,\ndisobedience or resistance to orders was no more tolerated than in a\nwife, a child, or a soldier; and a man was expected to murder his own\nfather if his chieftain required it. Thus these Teutonic communities\nadmitted an independence of government that threatened to dissolve\nsociety; and a dependence on persons that was dangerous to freedom. It\nwas a system very favourable to corporations, but offering no security\nto individuals. The State was not likely to oppress its subjects; and\nwas not able to protect them.\n\nThe first effect of the great Teutonic migration into the regions\ncivilised by Rome was to throw back Europe many centuries to a condition\nscarcely more advanced than that from which the institutions of Solon\nhad rescued Athens. Whilst the Greeks preserved the literature, the\narts, and the science of antiquity and all the sacred monuments of early\nChristianity with a completeness of which the rended fragments that have\ncome down to us give no commensurate idea, and even the peasants of\nBulgaria knew the New Testament by heart, Western Europe lay under the\ngrasp of masters the ablest of whom could not write their names. The\nfaculty of exact reasoning, of accurate observation, became extinct for\nfive hundred years, and even the sciences most needful to society,\nmedicine and geometry, fell into decay, until the teachers of the West\nwent to school at the feet of Arabian masters. To bring order out of\nchaotic ruin, to rear a new civilisation and blend hostile and unequal\nraces into a nation, the thing wanted was not liberty but force. And for\ncenturies all progress is attached to the action of men like Clovis,\nCharlemagne, and William the Norman, who were resolute and peremptory,\nand prompt to be obeyed.\n\nThe spirit of immemorial paganism which had saturated ancient society\ncould not be exorcised except by the combined influence of Church and\nState; and the universal sense that their union was necessary created\nthe Byzantine despotism. The divines of the Empire who could not fancy\nChristianity flourishing beyond its borders, insisted that the State is\nnot in the Church, but the Church in the State. This doctrine had\nscarcely been uttered when the rapid collapse of the Western Empire\nopened a wider horizon; and Salvianus, a priest at Marseilles,\nproclaimed that the social virtues, which were decaying amid the\ncivilised Romans, existed in greater purity and promise among the Pagan\ninvaders. They were converted with ease and rapidity; and their\nconversion was generally brought about by their kings.\n\nChristianity, which in earlier times had addressed itself to the masses,\nand relied on the principle of liberty, now made its appeal to the\nrulers, and threw its mighty influence into the scale of authority. The\nbarbarians, who possessed no books, no secular knowledge, no education,\nexcept in the schools of the clergy, and who had scarcely acquired the\nrudiments of religious instruction, turned with childlike attachment to\nmen whose minds were stored with the knowledge of Scripture, of Cicero,\nof St. Augustine; and in the scanty world of their ideas, the Church was\nfelt to be something infinitely vaster, stronger, holier than their\nnewly founded States. The clergy supplied the means of conducting the\nnew governments, and were made exempt from taxation, from the\njurisdiction of the civil magistrate, and of the political\nadministrator. They taught that power ought to be conferred by election;\nand the Councils of Toledo furnished the framework of the Parliamentary\nsystem of Spain, which is, by a long interval, the oldest in the world.\nBut the monarchy of the Goths in Spain, as well as that of the Saxons in\nEngland, in both of which the nobles and the prelates surrounded the\nthrone with the semblance of free institutions, passed away; and the\npeople that prospered and overshadowed the rest were the Franks, who had\nno native nobility, whose law of succession to the Crown became for one\nthousand years the fixed object of an unchanging superstition, and under\nwhom the feudal system was developed to excess.\n\nFeudalism made land the measure and the master of all things. Having no\nother source of wealth than the produce of the soil, men depended on the\nlandlord for the means of escaping starvation; and thus his power became\nparamount over the liberty of the subject and the authority of the\nState. Every baron, said the French maxim, is sovereign in his own\ndomain. The nations of the West lay between the competing tyrannies of\nlocal magnates and of absolute monarchs, when a force was brought upon\nthe scene which proved for a time superior alike to the vassal and his\nlord.\n\nIn the days of the Conquest, when the Normans destroyed the liberties of\nEngland, the rude institutions which had come with the Saxons, the\nGoths, and the Franks from the forests of Germany were suffering decay,\nand the new element of popular government afterwards supplied by the\nrise of towns and the formation of a middle class was not yet active.\nThe only influence capable of resisting the feudal hierarchy was the\necclesiastical hierarchy; and they came into collision, when the process\nof feudalism threatened the independence of the Church by subjecting the\nprelates severally to that form of personal dependence on the kings\nwhich was peculiar to the Teutonic state.\n\nTo that conflict of four hundred years we owe the rise of civil liberty.\nIf the Church had continued to buttress the thrones of the kings whom it\nanointed, or if the struggle had terminated speedily in an undivided\nvictory, all Europe would have sunk down under a Byzantine or Muscovite\ndespotism. For the aim of both contending parties was absolute\nauthority. But although liberty was not the end for which they strove,\nit was the means by which the temporal and the spiritual power called\nthe nations to their aid. The towns of Italy and Germany won their\nfranchises, France got her States-General, and England her Parliament\nout of the alternate phases of the contest; and as long as it lasted it\nprevented the rise of divine right. A disposition existed to regard the\ncrown as an estate descending under the law of real property in the\nfamily that possessed it. But the authority of religion, and especially\nof the papacy, was thrown on the side that denied the indefeasible title\nof kings. In France what was afterwards called the Gallican theory\nmaintained that the reigning house was above the law, and that the\nsceptre was not to pass away from it as long as there should be princes\nof the royal blood of St. Louis. But in other countries the oath of\nfidelity itself attested that it was conditional, and should be kept\nonly during good behaviour; and it was in conformity with the public law\nto which all monarchs were held subject, that King John was declared a\nrebel against the barons, and that the men who raised Edward III. to the\nthrone from which they had deposed his father invoked the maxim _Vox\npopuli Vox Dei_.\n\nAnd this doctrine of the divine right of the people to raise up and pull\ndown princes, after obtaining the sanctions of religion, was made to\nstand on broader grounds, and was strong enough to resist both Church\nand king. In the struggle between the House of Bruce and the House of\nPlantagenet for the possession of Scotland and Ireland, the English\nclaim was backed by the censures of Rome. But the Irish and the Scots\nrefused it, and the address in which the Scottish Parliament informed\nthe Pope of their resolution shows how firmly the popular doctrine had\ntaken root. Speaking of Robert Bruce, they say: \"Divine Providence, the\nlaws and customs of the country, which we will defend till death, and\nthe choice of the people, have made him our king. If he should ever\nbetray his principles, and consent that we should be subjects of the\nEnglish king, then we shall treat him as an enemy, as the subverter of\nour rights and his own, and shall elect another in his place. We care\nnot for glory or for wealth, but for that liberty which no true man will\ngive up but with his life.\" This estimate of royalty was natural among\nmen accustomed to see those whom they most respected in constant strife\nwith their rulers. Gregory VII. had begun the disparagement of civil\nauthorities by saying that they are the work of the devil; and already\nin his time both parties were driven to acknowledge the sovereignty of\nthe people, and appealed to it as the immediate source of power.\n\nTwo centuries later this political theory had gained both in\ndefiniteness and in force among the Guelphs, who were the Church party,\nand among the Ghibellines, or Imperialists. Here are the sentiments of\nthe most celebrated of all the Guelphic writers: \"A king who is\nunfaithful to his duty forfeits his claim to obedience. It is not\nrebellion to depose him, for he is himself a rebel whom the nation has a\nright to put down. But it is better to abridge his power, that he may be\nunable to abuse it. For this purpose, the whole nation ought to have a\nshare in governing itself; the Constitution ought to combine a limited\nand elective monarchy, with an aristocracy of merit, and such an\nadmixture of democracy as shall admit all classes to office, by popular\nelection. No government has a right to levy taxes beyond the limit\ndetermined by the people. All political authority is derived from\npopular suffrage, and all laws must be made by the people or their\nrepresentatives. There is no security for us as long as we depend on the\nwill of another man.\" This language, which contains the earliest\nexposition of the Whig theory of the revolution, is taken from the works\nof St. Thomas Aquinas, of whom Lord Bacon says that he had the largest\nheart of the school divines. And it is worth while to observe that he\nwrote at the very moment when Simon de Montfort summoned the Commons;\nand that the politics of the Neapolitan friar are centuries in advance\nof the English statesman's.\n\nThe ablest writer of the Ghibelline party was Marsilius of Padua.\n\"Laws,\" he said, \"derive their authority from the nation, and are\ninvalid without its assent. As the whole is greater than any part, it is\nwrong that any part should legislate for the whole; and as men are\nequal, it is wrong that one should be bound by laws made by another. But\nin obeying laws to which all men have agreed, all men, in reality,\ngovern themselves. The monarch, who is instituted by the legislature to\nexecute its will, ought to be armed with a force sufficient to coerce\nindividuals, but not sufficient to control the majority of the people.\nHe is responsible to the nation, and subject to the law; and the nation\nthat appoints him, and assigns him his duties, has to see that he obeys\nthe Constitution, and has to dismiss him if he breaks it. The rights of\ncitizens are independent of the faith they profess; and no man may be\npunished for his religion.\" This writer, who saw in some respects\nfarther than Locke or Montesquieu, who, in regard to the sovereignty of\nthe nation, representative government, the superiority of the\nlegislature over the executive, and the liberty of conscience, had so\nfirm a grasp of the principles that were to sway the modern world, lived\nin the reign of Edward II., five hundred and fifty years ago.\n\nIt is significant that these two writers should agree on so many of the\nfundamental points which have been, ever since, the topic of\ncontroversy; for they belonged to hostile schools, and one of them would\nhave thought the other worthy of death. St. Thomas would have made the\npapacy control all Christian governments. Marsilius would have had the\nclergy submit to the law of the land; and would have put them under\nrestrictions both as to property and numbers. As the great debate went\non, many things gradually made themselves clear, and grew into settled\nconvictions. For these were not only the thoughts of prophetic minds\nthat surpassed the level of contemporaries; there was some prospect that\nthey would master the practical world. The ancient reign of the barons\nwas seriously threatened. The opening of the East by the Crusades had\nimparted a great stimulus to industry. A stream set in from the country\nto the towns, and there was no room for the government of towns in the\nfeudal machinery. When men found a way of earning a livelihood without\ndepending for it on the good will of the class that owned the land, the\nlandowner lost much of his importance, and it began to pass to the\npossessors of moveable wealth. The townspeople not only made themselves\nfree from the control of prelates and barons, but endeavoured to obtain\nfor their own class and interest the command of the State.\n\nThe fourteenth century was filled with the tumult of this struggle\nbetween democracy and chivalry. The Italian towns, foremost in\nintelligence and civilisation, led the way with democratic constitutions\nof an ideal and generally an impracticable type. The Swiss cast off the\nyoke of Austria. Two long chains of free cities arose, along the valley\nof the Rhine, and across the heart of Germany. The citizens of Paris got\npossession of the king, reformed the State, and began their tremendous\ncareer of experiments to govern France. But the most healthy and\nvigorous growth of municipal liberties was in Belgium, of all countries\non the Continent, that which has been from immemorial ages the most\nstubborn in its fidelity to the principle of self-government. So vast\nwere the resources concentrated in the Flemish towns, so widespread was\nthe movement of democracy, that it was long doubtful whether the new\ninterest would not prevail, and whether the ascendency of the military\naristocracy would not pass over to the wealth and intelligence of the\nmen that lived by trade. But Rienzi, Marcel, Artevelde, and the other\nchampions of the unripe democracy of those days, lived and died in vain.\nThe upheaval of the middle class had disclosed the need, the passions,\nthe aspirations of the suffering poor below; ferocious insurrections in\nFrance and England caused a reaction that retarded for centuries the\nreadjustment of power, and the red spectre of social revolution arose in\nthe track of democracy. The armed citizens of Ghent were crushed by the\nFrench chivalry; and monarchy alone reaped the fruit of the change that\nwas going on in the position of classes, and stirred the minds of men.\n\nLooking back over the space of a thousand years, which we call the\nMiddle Ages, to get an estimate of the work they had done, if not\ntowards perfection in their institutions, at least towards attaining the\nknowledge of political truth, this is what we find: Representative\ngovernment, which was unknown to the ancients, was almost universal. The\nmethods of election were crude; but the principle that no tax was lawful\nthat was not granted by the class that paid it--that is, that taxation\nwas inseparable from representation--was recognised, not as the\nprivilege of certain countries, but as the right of all. Not a prince in\nthe world, said Philip de Commines, can levy a penny without the consent\nof the people. Slavery was almost everywhere extinct; and absolute power\nwas deemed more intolerable and more criminal than slavery. The right of\ninsurrection was not only admitted but defined, as a duty sanctioned by\nreligion. Even the principles of the Habeas Corpus Act, and the method\nof the Income Tax, were already known. The issue of ancient politics was\nan absolute state planted on slavery. The political produce of the\nMiddle Ages was a system of states in which authority was restricted by\nthe representation of powerful classes, by privileged associations, and\nby the acknowledgment of duties superior to those which are imposed by\nman.\n\nAs regards the realisation in practice of what was seen to be good,\nthere was almost everything to do. But the great problems of principle\nhad been solved, and we come to the question, How did the sixteenth\ncentury husband the treasure which the Middle Ages had stored up? The\nmost visible sign of the times was the decline of the religious\ninfluence that had reigned so long. Sixty years passed after the\ninvention of printing, and thirty thousand books had issued from\nEuropean presses, before anybody undertook to print the Greek Testament.\nIn the days when every State made the unity of faith its first care, it\ncame to be thought that the rights of men, and the duties of neighbours\nand of rulers towards them, varied according to their religion; and\nsociety did not acknowledge the same obligations to a Turk or a Jew, a\npagan or a heretic, or a devil worshipper, as to an orthodox Christian.\nAs the ascendency of religion grew weaker, this privilege of treating\nits enemies on exceptional principles was claimed by the State for its\nown benefit; and the idea that the ends of government justify the means\nemployed was worked into system by Machiavelli. He was an acute\npolitician, sincerely anxious that the obstacles to the intelligent\ngovernment of Italy should be swept away. It appeared to him that the\nmost vexatious obstacle to intellect is conscience, and that the\nvigorous use of statecraft necessary for the success of difficult\nschemes would never be made if governments allowed themselves to be\nhampered by the precepts of the copy-book.\n\nHis audacious doctrine was avowed in the succeeding age by men whose\npersonal character stood high. They saw that in critical times good men\nhave seldom strength for their goodness, and yield to those who have\ngrasped the meaning of the maxim that you cannot make an omelette if you\nare afraid to break the eggs. They saw that public morality differs from\nprivate, because no Government can turn the other cheek, or can admit\nthat mercy is better than justice. And they could not define the\ndifference or draw the limits of exception; or tell what other standard\nfor a nation's acts there is than the judgment which Heaven pronounces\nin this world by success.\n\nMachiavelli's teaching would hardly have stood the test of Parliamentary\ngovernment, for public discussion demands at least the profession of\ngood faith. But it gave an immense impulse to absolutism by silencing\nthe consciences of very religious kings, and made the good and the bad\nvery much alike. Charles V. offered 5000 crowns for the murder of an\nenemy. Ferdinand I. and Ferdinand II., Henry III. and Louis XIII., each\ncaused his most powerful subject to be treacherously despatched.\nElizabeth and Mary Stuart tried to do the same to each other. The way\nwas paved for absolute monarchy to triumph over the spirit and\ninstitutions of a better age, not by isolated acts of wickedness, but by\na studied philosophy of crime and so thorough a perversion of the moral\nsense that the like of it had not been since the Stoics reformed the\nmorality of paganism.\n\nThe clergy, who had in so many ways served the cause of freedom during\nthe prolonged strife against feudalism and slavery, were associated now\nwith the interest of royalty. Attempts had been made to reform the\nChurch on the Constitutional model; they had failed, but they had united\nthe hierarchy and the crown against the system of divided power as\nagainst a common enemy. Strong kings were able to bring the spirituality\nunder subjection in France and Spain, in Sicily and in England. The\nabsolute monarchy of France was built up in the two following centuries\nby twelve political cardinals. The kings of Spain obtained the same\neffect almost at a single stroke by reviving and appropriating to their\nown use the tribunal of the Inquisition, which had been growing\nobsolete, but now served to arm them with terrors which effectually made\nthem despotic. One generation beheld the change all over Europe, from\nthe anarchy of the days of the Roses to the passionate submission, the\ngratified acquiescence in tyranny that marks the reign of Henry VIII.\nand the kings of his time.\n\nThe tide was running fast when the Reformation began at Wittenberg, and\nit was to be expected that Luther's influence would stem the flood of\nabsolutism. For he was confronted everywhere by the compact alliance of\nthe Church with the State; and great part of his country was governed by\nhostile potentates who were prelates of the Court of Rome. He had,\nindeed, more to fear from temporal than from spiritual foes. The leading\nGerman bishops wished that the Protestant demands should be conceded;\nand the Pope himself vainly urged on the Emperor a conciliatory policy.\nBut Charles V. had outlawed Luther, and attempted to waylay him; and the\nDukes of Bavaria were active in beheading and burning his disciples,\nwhilst the democracy of the towns generally took his side. But the dread\nof revolution was the deepest of his political sentiments; and the gloss\nby which the Guelphic divines had got over the passive obedience of the\napostolic age was characteristic of that mediaeval method of\ninterpretation which he rejected. He swerved for a moment in his later\nyears; but the substance of his political teaching was eminently\nconservative, the Lutheran States became the stronghold of rigid\nimmobility, and Lutheran writers constantly condemned the democratic\nliterature that arose in the second age of the Reformation. For the\nSwiss reformers were bolder than the Germans in mixing up their cause\nwith politics. Zurich and Geneva were Republics, and the spirit of their\ngovernments influenced both Zwingli and Calvin.\n\nZwingli indeed did not shrink from the mediaeval doctrine that evil\nmagistrates must be cashiered; but he was killed too early to act either\ndeeply or permanently on the political character of Protestantism.\nCalvin, although a Republican, judged that the people are unfit to\ngovern themselves, and declared the popular assembly an abuse that ought\nto be abolished. He desired an aristocracy of the elect, armed with the\nmeans of punishing not only crime but vice and error. For he thought\nthat the severity of the mediaeval laws was insufficient for the need of\nthe times; and he favoured the most irresistible weapon which the\ninquisitorial procedure put into the hand of the Government, the right\nof subjecting prisoners to intolerable torture, not because they were\nguilty, but because their guilt could not be proved. His teaching,\nthough not calculated to promote popular institutions, was so adverse to\nthe authority of the surrounding monarchs, that he softened down the\nexpression of his political views in the French edition of his\n_Institutes_.\n\nThe direct political influence of the Reformation effected less than has\nbeen supposed. Most States were strong enough to control it. Some, by\nintense exertion, shut out the pouring flood. Others, with consummate\nskill, diverted it to their own uses. The Polish Government alone at\nthat time left it to its course. Scotland was the only kingdom in which\nthe Reformation triumphed over the resistance of the State; and Ireland\nwas the only instance where it failed, in spite of Government support.\nBut in almost every other case, both the princes that spread their\ncanvas to the gale and those that faced it, employed the zeal, the\nalarm, the passions it aroused as instruments for the increase of power.\nNations eagerly invested their rulers with every prerogative needed to\npreserve their faith, and all the care to keep Church and State asunder,\nand to prevent the confusion of their powers, which had been the work of\nages, was renounced in the intensity of the crisis. Atrocious deeds were\ndone, in which religious passion was often the instrument, but policy\nwas the motive.\n\nFanaticism displays itself in the masses, but the masses were rarely\nfanaticised, and the crimes ascribed to it were commonly due to the\ncalculations of dispassionate politicians. When the King of France\nundertook to kill all the Protestants, he was obliged to do it by his\nown agents. It was nowhere the spontaneous act of the population, and in\nmany towns and in entire provinces the magistrates refused to obey. The\nmotive of the Court was so far from mere fanaticism that the Queen\nimmediately challenged Elizabeth to do the like to the English\nCatholics. Francis I. and Henry II. sent nearly a hundred Huguenots to\nthe stake, but they were cordial and assiduous promoters of the\nProtestant religion in Germany. Sir Nicholas Bacon was one of the\nministers who suppressed the mass in England. Yet when the Huguenot\nrefugees came over he liked them so little that he reminded Parliament\nof the summary way in which Henry V. at Agincourt dealt with the\nFrenchmen who fell into his hands. John Knox thought that every Catholic\nin Scotland ought to be put to death, and no man ever had disciples of a\nsterner or more relentless temper. But his counsel was not followed.\n\nAll through the religious conflict policy kept the upper hand. When the\nlast of the Reformers died, religion, instead of emancipating the\nnations, had become an excuse for the criminal art of despots. Calvin\npreached and Bellarmine lectured, but Machiavelli reigned. Before the\nclose of the century three events occurred which mark the beginning of a\nmomentous change. The massacre of St. Bartholomew convinced the bulk of\nCalvinists of the lawfulness of rebellion against tyrants, and they\nbecame advocates of that doctrine in which the Bishop of Winchester had\nled the way,[4] and which Knox and Buchanan had received, through their\nmaster at Paris, straight from the mediaeval schools. Adopted out of\naversion to the King of France, it was soon put in practice against the\nKing of Spain. The revolted Netherlands, by a solemn Act, deposed Philip\nII., and made themselves independent under the Prince of Orange, who had\nbeen, and continued to be, styled his Lieutenant. Their example was\nimportant, not only because subjects of one religion deposed a monarch\nof another, for that had been seen in Scotland, but because, moreover,\nit put a republic in the place of a monarchy, and forced the public law\nof Europe to recognise the accomplished revolution. At the same time,\nthe French Catholics, rising against Henry III., who was the most\ncontemptible of tyrants, and against his heir, Henry of Navarre, who, as\na Protestant, repelled the majority of the nation, fought for the same\nprinciples with sword and pen.\n\nMany shelves might be filled with the books which came out in their\ndefence during half a century, and they include the most comprehensive\ntreatises on laws ever written. Nearly all are vitiated by the defect\nwhich disfigured political literature in the Middle Ages. That\nliterature, as I have tried to show, is extremely remarkable, and its\nservices in aiding human progress are very great. But from the death of\nSt. Bernard until the appearance of Sir Thomas More's _Utopia_, there\nwas hardly a writer who did not make his politics subservient to the\ninterest of either Pope or King. And those who came after the\nReformation were always thinking of laws as they might affect Catholics\nor Protestants. Knox thundered against what he called _the Monstrous\nRegiment of Women_, because the Queen went to mass, and Mariana praised\nthe assassin of Henry III. because the King was in league with\nHuguenots. For the belief that it is right to murder tyrants, first\ntaught among Christians, I believe, by John of Salisbury, the most\ndistinguished English writer of the twelfth century, and confirmed by\nRoger Bacon, the most celebrated Englishman of the thirteenth, had\nacquired about this time a fatal significance. Nobody sincerely thought\nof politics as a law for the just and the unjust, or tried to find out a\nset of principles that should hold good alike under all changes of\nreligion. Hooker's _Ecclesiastical Polity_ stands almost alone among the\nworks I am speaking of, and is still read with admiration by every\nthoughtful man as the earliest and one of the finest prose classics in\nour language. But though few of the others have survived, they\ncontributed to hand down masculine notions of limited authority and\nconditional obedience from the epoch of theory to generations of free\nmen. Even the coarse violence of Buchanan and Boucher was a link in the\nchain of tradition that connects the Hildebrandine controversy with the\nLong Parliament, and St. Thomas with Edmund Burke.\n\nThat men should understand that governments do not exist by divine\nright, and that arbitrary government is the violation of divine right,\nwas no doubt the medicine suited to the malady under which Europe\nlanguished. But although the knowledge of this truth might become an\nelement of salutary destruction, it could give little aid to progress\nand reform. Resistance to tyranny implied no faculty of constructing a\nlegal government in its place. Tyburn tree may be a useful thing, but it\nis better still that the offender should live for repentance and\nreformation. The principles which discriminate in politics between good\nand evil, and make States worthy to last, were not yet found.\n\nThe French philosopher Charron was one of the men least demoralised by\nparty spirit, and least blinded by zeal for a cause. In a passage almost\nliterally taken from St. Thomas, he describes our subordination under a\nlaw of nature, to which all legislation must conform; and he ascertains\nit not by the light of revealed religion, but by the voice of universal\nreason, through which God enlightens the consciences of men. Upon this\nfoundation Grotius drew the lines of real political science. In\ngathering the materials of international law, he had to go beyond\nnational treaties and denominational interests for a principle embracing\nall mankind. The principles of law must stand, he said, even if we\nsuppose that there is no God. By these inaccurate terms he meant that\nthey must be found independently of revelation. From that time it became\npossible to make politics a matter of principle and of conscience, so\nthat men and nations differing in all other things could live in peace\ntogether, under the sanctions of a common law. Grotius himself used his\ndiscovery to little purpose, as he deprived it of immediate effect by\nadmitting that the right to reign may be enjoyed as a freehold, subject\nto no conditions.\n\nWhen Cumberland and Pufendorf unfolded the true significance of his\ndoctrine, every settled authority, every triumphant interest recoiled\naghast. None were willing to surrender advantages won by force or skill,\nbecause they might be in contradiction, not with the Ten Commandments,\nbut with an unknown code, which Grotius himself had not attempted to\ndraw up, and touching which no two philosophers agreed. It was manifest\nthat all persons who had learned that political science is an affair of\nconscience rather than of might or expediency, must regard their\nadversaries as men without principle, that the controversy between them\nwould perpetually involve morality, and could not be governed by the\nplea of good intentions, which softens down the asperities of religious\nstrife. Nearly all the greatest men of the seventeenth century\nrepudiated the innovation. In the eighteenth, the two ideas of Grotius,\nthat there are certain political truths by which every State and every\ninterest must stand or fall, and that society is knit together by a\nseries of real and hypothetical contracts, became, in other hands, the\nlever that displaced the world. When, by what seemed the operation of an\nirresistible and constant law, royalty had prevailed over all enemies\nand all competitors, it became a religion. Its ancient rivals, the baron\nand the prelate, figured as supporters by its side. Year after year, the\nassemblies that represented the self-government of provinces and of\nprivileged classes, all over the Continent, met for the last time and\npassed away, to the satisfaction of the people, who had learned to\nvenerate the throne as the constructor of their unity, the promoter of\nprosperity and power, the defender of orthodoxy, and the employer of\ntalent.\n\nThe Bourbons, who had snatched the crown from a rebellious democracy,\nthe Stuarts, who had come in as usurpers, set up the doctrine that\nStates are formed by the valour, the policy, and the appropriate\nmarriages of the royal family; that the king is consequently anterior to\nthe people, that he is its maker rather than its handiwork, and reigns\nindependently of consent. Theology followed up divine right with passive\nobedience. In the golden age of religious science, Archbishop Ussher,\nthe most learned of Anglican prelates, and Bossuet, the ablest of the\nFrench, declared that resistance to kings is a crime, and that they may\nlawfully employ compulsion against the faith of their subjects. The\nphilosophers heartily supported the divines. Bacon fixed his hope of all\nhuman progress on the strong hand of kings. Descartes advised them to\ncrush all those who might be able to resist their power. Hobbes taught\nthat authority is always in the right. Pascal considered it absurd to\nreform laws, or to set up an ideal justice against actual force. Even\nSpinoza, who was a Republican and a Jew, assigned to the State the\nabsolute control of religion.\n\nMonarchy exerted a charm over the imagination, so unlike the\nunceremonious spirit of the Middle Ages, that, on learning the execution\nof Charles I., men died of the shock; and the same thing occurred at the\ndeath of Louis XVI. and of the Duke of Enghien. The classic land of\nabsolute monarchy was France. Richelieu held that it would be impossible\nto keep the people down if they were suffered to be well off. The\nChancellor affirmed that France could not be governed without the right\nof arbitrary arrest and exile; and that in case of danger to the State\nit may be well that a hundred innocent men should perish. The Minister\nof Finance called it sedition to demand that the Crown should keep\nfaith. One who lived on intimate terms with Louis XIV. says that even\nthe slightest disobedience to the royal will is a crime to be punished\nwith death. Louis employed these precepts to their fullest extent. He\ncandidly avows that kings are no more bound by the terms of a treaty\nthan by the words of a compliment; and that there is nothing in the\npossession of their subjects which they may not lawfully take from them.\nIn obedience to this principle, when Marshal Vauban, appalled by the\nmisery of the people, proposed that all existing imposts should be\nrepealed for a single tax that would be less onerous, the King took his\nadvice, but retained all the old taxes whilst he imposed the new. With\nhalf the present population, he maintained an army of 450,000 men;\nnearly twice as large as that which the late Emperor Napoleon assembled\nto attack Germany. Meanwhile the people starved on grass. France, said\nFenelon, is one enormous hospital. French historians believe that in a\nsingle generation six millions of people died of want. It would be easy\nto find tyrants more violent, more malignant, more odious than Louis\nXIV., but there was not one who ever used his power to inflict greater\nsuffering or greater wrong; and the admiration with which he inspired\nthe most illustrious men of his time denotes the lowest depth to which\nthe turpitude of absolutism has ever degraded the conscience of Europe.\n\nThe Republics of that day were, for the most part, so governed as to\nreconcile men with the less opprobrious vices of monarchy. Poland was a\nState made up of centrifugal forces. What the nobles called liberty was\nthe right of each of them to veto the acts of the Diet, and to persecute\nthe peasants on his estates--rights which they refused to surrender up\nto the time of the partition, and thus verified the warning of a\npreacher spoken long ago: \"You will perish, not by invasion or war, but\nby your infernal liberties.\" Venice suffered from the opposite evil of\nexcessive concentration. It was the most sagacious of Governments, and\nwould rarely have made mistakes if it had not imputed to others motives\nas wise as its own, and had taken account of passions and follies of\nwhich it had little cognisance. But the supreme power of the nobility\nhad passed to a committee, from the committee to a Council of Ten, from\nthe Ten to three Inquisitors of State; and in this intensely centralised\nform it became, about the year 1600, a frightful despotism. I have shown\nyou how Machiavelli supplied the immoral theory needful for the\nconsummation of royal absolutism; the absolute oligarchy of Venice\nrequired the same assurance against the revolt of conscience. It was\nprovided by a writer as able as Machiavelli, who analysed the wants and\nresources of aristocracy, and made known that its best security is\npoison. As late as a century ago, Venetian senators of honourable and\neven religious lives employed assassins for the public good with no more\ncompunction than Philip II. or Charles IX.\n\nThe Swiss Cantons, especially Geneva, profoundly influenced opinion in\nthe days preceding the French Revolution, but they had had no part in\nthe earlier movement to inaugurate the reign of law. That honour belongs\nto the Netherlands alone among the Commonwealths. They earned it, not by\ntheir form of government, which was defective and precarious, for the\nOrange party perpetually plotted against it, and slew the two most\neminent of the Republican statesmen, and William III. himself intrigued\nfor English aid to set the crown upon his head; but by the freedom of\nthe press, which made Holland the vantage-ground from which, in the\ndarkest hour of oppression, the victims of the oppressors obtained the\near of Europe.\n\nThe ordinance of Louis XIV., that every French Protestant should\nimmediately renounce his religion, went out in the year in which James\nII. became king. The Protestant refugees did what their ancestors had\ndone a century before. They asserted the deposing power of subjects over\nrulers who had broken the original contract between them, and all the\nPowers, excepting France, countenanced their argument, and sent forth\nWilliam of Orange on that expedition which was the faint dawn of a\nbrighter day.\n\nIt is to this unexampled combination of things on the Continent, more\nthan to her own energy, that England owes her deliverance. The efforts\nmade by the Scots, by the Irish, and at last by the Long Parliament to\nget rid of the misrule of the Stuarts had been foiled, not by the\nresistance of Monarchy, but by the helplessness of the Republic. State\nand Church were swept away; new institutions were raised up under the\nablest ruler that had ever sprung from a revolution; and England,\nseething with the toil of political thought, had produced at least two\nwriters who in many directions saw as far and as clearly as we do now.\nBut Cromwell's Constitution was rolled up like a scroll; Harrington and\nLilburne were laughed at for a time and forgotten, the country confessed\nthe failure of its striving, disavowed its aims, and flung itself with\nenthusiasm, and without any effective stipulations, at the feet of a\nworthless king.\n\nIf the people of England had accomplished no more than this to relieve\nmankind from the pervading pressure of unlimited monarchy, they would\nhave done more harm than good. By the fanatical treachery with which,\nviolating the Parliament and the law, they contrived the death of King\nCharles, by the ribaldry of the Latin pamphlet with which Milton\njustified the act before the world, by persuading the world that the\nRepublicans were hostile alike to liberty and to authority, and did not\nbelieve in themselves, they gave strength and reason to the current of\nRoyalism, which, at the Restoration, overwhelmed their work. If there\nhad been nothing to make up for this defect of certainty and of\nconstancy in politics England would have gone the way of other nations.\n\nAt that time there was some truth in the old joke which describes the\nEnglish dislike of speculation by saying that all our philosophy\nconsists of a short catechism in two questions: \"What is mind? No\nmatter. What is matter? Never mind.\" The only accepted appeal was to\ntradition. Patriots were in the habit of saying that they took their\nstand upon the ancient ways, and would not have the laws of England\nchanged. To enforce their argument they invented a story that the\nconstitution had come from Troy, and that the Romans had allowed it to\nsubsist untouched. Such fables did not avail against Strafford; and the\noracle of precedent sometimes gave responses adverse to the popular\ncause. In the sovereign question of religion, this was decisive, for the\npractice of the sixteenth century, as well as of the fifteenth,\ntestified in favour of intolerance. By royal command, the nation had\npassed four times in one generation from one faith to another, with a\nfacility that made a fatal impression on Laud. In a country that had\nproscribed every religion in turn, and had submitted to such a variety\nof penal measures against Lollard and Arian, against Augsburg and Rome,\nit seemed there could be no danger in cropping the ears of a Puritan.\n\nBut an age of stronger conviction had arrived; and men resolved to\nabandon the ancient ways that led to the scaffold and the rack, and to\nmake the wisdom of their ancestors and the statutes of the land bow\nbefore an unwritten law. Religious liberty had been the dream of great\nChristian writers in the age of Constantine and Valentinian, a dream\nnever wholly realised in the Empire, and rudely dispelled when the\nbarbarians found that it exceeded the resources of their art to govern\ncivilised populations of another religion, and unity of worship was\nimposed by laws of blood and by theories more cruel than the laws. But\nfrom St. Athanasius and St. Ambrose down to Erasmus and More, each age\nheard the protest of earnest men in behalf of the liberty of conscience,\nand the peaceful days before the Reformation were full of promise that\nit would prevail.\n\nIn the commotion that followed, men were glad to get tolerated\nthemselves by way of privilege and compromise, and willingly renounced\nthe wider application of the principle. Socinus was the first who, on\nthe ground that Church and State ought to be separated, required\nuniversal toleration. But Socinus disarmed his own theory, for he was a\nstrict advocate of passive obedience.\n\nThe idea that religious liberty is the generating principle of civil,\nand that civil liberty is the necessary condition of religious, was a\ndiscovery reserved for the seventeenth century. Many years before the\nnames of Milton and Taylor, of Baxter and Locke were made illustrious by\ntheir partial condemnation of intolerance, there were men among the\nIndependent congregations who grasped with vigour and sincerity the\nprinciple that it is only by abridging the authority of States that the\nliberty of Churches can be assured. That great political idea,\nsanctifying freedom and consecrating it to God, teaching men to treasure\nthe liberties of others as their own, and to defend them for the love of\njustice and charity more than as a claim of right, has been the soul of\nwhat is great and good in the progress of the last two hundred years.\nThe cause of religion, even under the unregenerate influence of worldly\npassion, had as much to do as any clear notions of policy in making\nthis country the foremost of the free. It had been the deepest current\nin the movement of 1641, and it remained the strongest motive that\nsurvived the reaction of 1660.\n\nThe greatest writers of the Whig party, Burke and Macaulay, constantly\nrepresented the statesmen of the Revolution as the legitimate ancestors\nof modern liberty. It is humiliating to trace a political lineage to\nAlgernon Sidney, who was the paid agent of the French king; to Lord\nRussell, who opposed religious toleration at least as much as absolute\nmonarchy; to Shaftesbury, who dipped his hands in the innocent blood\nshed by the perjury of Titus Oates; to Halifax, who insisted that the\nplot must be supported even if untrue; to Marlborough, who sent his\ncomrades to perish on an expedition which he had betrayed to the French;\nto Locke, whose notion of liberty involves nothing more spiritual than\nthe security of property, and is consistent with slavery and\npersecution; or even to Addison, who conceived that the right of voting\ntaxes belonged to no country but his own. Defoe affirms that from the\ntime of Charles II. to that of George I. he never knew a politician who\ntruly held the faith of either party; and the perversity of the\nstatesmen who led the assault against the later Stuarts threw back the\ncause of progress for a century.\n\nWhen the purport of the secret treaty became suspected by which Louis\nXIV. pledged himself to support Charles II. with an army for the\ndestruction of Parliament, if Charles would overthrow the Anglican\nChurch, it was found necessary to make concession to the popular alarm.\nIt was proposed that whenever James should succeed, great part of the\nroyal prerogative and patronage should be transferred to Parliament. At\nthe same time, the disabilities of Nonconformists and Catholics would\nhave been removed. If the Limitation Bill, which Halifax supported with\nsignal ability, had passed, the monarchical constitution would have\nadvanced, in the seventeenth century, farther than it was destined to do\nuntil the second quarter of the nineteenth. But the enemies of James,\nguided by the Prince of Orange, preferred a Protestant king who should\nbe nearly absolute, to a constitutional king who should be a Catholic.\nThe scheme failed. James succeeded to a power which, in more cautious\nhands, would have been practically uncontrolled, and the storm that cast\nhim down gathered beyond the sea.\n\nBy arresting the preponderance of France, the Revolution of 1688 struck\nthe first real blow at Continental despotism. At home it relieved\nDissent, purified justice, developed the national energies and\nresources, and ultimately, by the Act of Settlement, placed the crown in\nthe gift of the people. But it neither introduced nor determined any\nimportant principle, and, that both parties might be able to work\ntogether, it left untouched the fundamental question between Whig and\nTory. For the divine right of kings it established, in the words of\nDefoe, the divine right of freeholders; and their domination extended\nfor seventy years, under the authority of John Locke, the philosopher of\ngovernment by the gentry. Even Hume did not enlarge the bounds of his\nideas; and his narrow materialistic belief in the connection between\nliberty and property captivated even the bolder mind of Fox.\n\nBy his idea that the powers of government ought to be divided according\nto their nature, and not according to the division of classes, which\nMontesquieu took up and developed with consummate talent, Locke is the\noriginator of the long reign of English institutions in foreign lands.\nAnd his doctrine of resistance, or, as he finally termed it, the appeal\nto Heaven, ruled the judgment of Chatham at a moment of solemn\ntransition in the history of the world. Our Parliamentary system,\nmanaged by the great revolution families, was a contrivance by which\nelectors were compelled, and legislators were induced to vote against\ntheir convictions; and the intimidation of the constituencies was\nrewarded by the corruption of their representatives. About the year 1770\nthings had been brought back, by indirect ways, nearly to the condition\nwhich the Revolution had been designed to remedy for ever. Europe seemed\nincapable of becoming the home of free States. It was from America that\nthe plain ideas that men ought to mind their own business, and that the\nnation is responsible to Heaven for the acts of the State,--ideas long\nlocked in the breast of solitary thinkers, and hidden among Latin\nfolios,--burst forth like a conqueror upon the world they were destined\nto transform, under the title of the Rights of Man. Whether the British\nlegislature had a constitutional right to tax a subject colony was hard\nto say, by the letter of the law. The general presumption was immense on\nthe side of authority; and the world believed that the will of the\nconstituted ruler ought to be supreme, and not the will of the subject\npeople. Very few bold writers went so far as to say that lawful power\nmay be resisted in cases of extreme necessity. But the colonisers of\nAmerica, who had gone forth not in search of gain, but to escape from\nlaws under which other Englishmen were content to live, were so\nsensitive even to appearances that the Blue Laws of Connecticut forbade\nmen to walk to church within ten feet of their wives. And the proposed\ntax, of only L12,000 a year, might have been easily borne. But the\nreasons why Edward I. and his Council were not allowed to tax England\nwere reasons why George III. and his Parliament should not tax America.\nThe dispute involved a principle, namely, the right of controlling\ngovernment. Furthermore, it involved the conclusion that the Parliament\nbrought together by a derisive election had no just right over the\nunrepresented nation, and it called on the people of England to take\nback its power. Our best statesmen saw that whatever might be the law,\nthe rights of the nation were at stake. Chatham, in speeches better\nremembered than any that have been delivered in Parliament, exhorted\nAmerica to be firm. Lord Camden, the late Chancellor, said: \"Taxation\nand representation are inseparably united. God hath joined them. No\nBritish Parliament can separate them.\"\n\nFrom the elements of that crisis Burke built up the noblest political\nphilosophy in the world. \"I do not know the method,\" said he, \"of\ndrawing up an indictment against a whole people. The natural rights of\nmankind are indeed sacred things, and if any public measure is proved\nmischievously to affect them, the objection ought to be fatal to that\nmeasure, even if no charter at all could be set up against it. Only a\nsovereign reason, paramount to all forms of legislation and\nadministration, should dictate.\" In this way, just a hundred years ago,\nthe opportune reticence, the politic hesitancy of European\nstatesmanship, was at last broken down; and the principle gained ground,\nthat a nation can never abandon its fate to an authority it cannot\ncontrol. The Americans placed it at the foundation of their new\ngovernment. They did more; for having subjected all civil authorities to\nthe popular will, they surrounded the popular will with restrictions\nthat the British legislature would not endure.\n\nDuring the revolution in France the example of England, which had been\nheld up so long, could not for a moment compete with the influence of a\ncountry whose institutions were so wisely framed to protect freedom even\nagainst the perils of democracy. When Louis Philippe became king, he\nassured the old Republican, Lafayette, that what he had seen in the\nUnited States had convinced him that no government can be so good as a\nRepublic. There was a time in the Presidency of Monroe, about fifty-five\nyears ago, which men still speak of as \"the era of good feeling,\" when\nmost of the incongruities that had come down from the Stuarts had been\nreformed, and the motives of later divisions were yet inactive. The\ncauses of old-world trouble,--popular ignorance, pauperism, the glaring\ncontrast between rich and poor, religious strife, public debts, standing\narmies and war,--were almost unknown. No other age or country had solved\nso successfully the problems that attend the growth of free societies,\nand time was to bring no further progress.\n\nBut I have reached the end of my time, and have hardly come to the\nbeginning of my task. In the ages of which I have spoken, the history of\nfreedom was the history of the thing that was not. But since the\nDeclaration of Independence, or, to speak more justly, since the\nSpaniards, deprived of their king, made a new government for themselves,\nthe only known forms of liberty, Republics and Constitutional Monarchy,\nhave made their way over the world. It would have been interesting to\ntrace the reaction of America on the Monarchies that achieved its\nindependence; to see how the sudden rise of political economy suggested\nthe idea of applying the methods of science to the art of government;\nhow Louis XVI., after confessing that despotism was useless, even to\nmake men happy by compulsion, appealed to the nation to do what was\nbeyond his skill, and thereby resigned his sceptre to the middle class,\nand the intelligent men of France, shuddering at the awful recollections\nof their own experience, struggled to shut out the past, that they might\ndeliver their children from the prince of the world and rescue the\nliving from the clutch of the dead, until the finest opportunity ever\ngiven to the world was thrown away, because the passion for equality\nmade vain the hope of freedom.\n\nAnd I should have wished to show you that the same deliberate rejection\nof the moral code which smoothed the paths of absolute monarchy and of\noligarchy, signalised the advent of the democratic claim to unlimited\npower,--that one of its leading champions avowed the design of\ncorrupting the moral sense of men, in order to destroy the influence of\nreligion, and a famous apostle of enlightenment and toleration wished\nthat the last king might be strangled with the entrails of the last\npriest. I would have tried to explain the connection between the\ndoctrine of Adam Smith, that labour is the original source of all\nwealth, and the conclusion that the producers of wealth virtually\ncompose the nation, by which Sieyes subverted historic France; and to\nshow that Rousseau's definition of the social compact as a voluntary\nassociation of equal partners conducted Marat, by short and unavoidable\nstages, to declare that the poorer classes were absolved, by the law of\nself-preservation, from the conditions of a contract which awarded to\nthem misery and death; that they were at war with society, and had a\nright to all they could get by exterminating the rich, and that their\ninflexible theory of equality, the chief legacy of the Revolution,\ntogether with the avowed inadequacy of economic science to grapple with\nproblems of the poor, revived the idea of renovating society on the\nprinciple of self-sacrifice, which had been the generous aspiration of\nthe Essenes and the early Christians, of Fathers and Canonists and\nFriars, of Erasmus, the most celebrated precursor of the Reformation, of\nSir Thomas More, its most illustrious victim, and of Fenelon, the most\npopular of bishops, but which, during the forty years of its revival,\nhas been associated with envy and hatred and bloodshed, and is now the\nmost dangerous enemy lurking in our path.\n\nLast, and most of all, having told so much of the unwisdom of our\nancestors, having exposed the sterility of the convulsion that burned\nwhat they adored, and made the sins of the Republic mount up as high as\nthose of the monarchy, having shown that Legitimacy, which repudiated\nthe Revolution, and Imperialism, which crowned it, were but disguises of\nthe same element of violence and wrong, I should have wished, in order\nthat my address might not break off without a meaning or a moral, to\nrelate by whom, and in what connection, the true law of the formation of\nfree States was recognised, and how that discovery, closely akin to\nthose which, under the names of development, evolution, and continuity,\nhave given a new and deeper method to other sciences, solved the ancient\nproblem between stability and change, and determined the authority of\ntradition on the progress of thought; how that theory, which Sir James\nMackintosh expressed by saying that Constitutions are not made, but\ngrow; the theory that custom and the national qualities of the governed,\nand not the will of the government, are the makers of the law; and\ntherefore that the nation, which is the source of its own organic\ninstitutions, should be charged with the perpetual custody of their\nintegrity, and with the duty of bringing the form into harmony with the\nspirit, was made, by the singular co-operation of the purest\nConservative intellect with red-handed revolution, of Niebuhr with\nMazzini, to yield the idea of nationality, which, far more than the idea\nof liberty, has governed the movement of the present age.\n\nI do not like to conclude without inviting attention to the impressive\nfact that so much of the hard fighting, the thinking, the enduring that\nhas contributed to the deliverance of man from the power of man, has\nbeen the work of our countrymen, and of their descendants in other\nlands. We have had to contend, as much as any people, against monarchs\nof strong will and of resources secured by their foreign possession,\nagainst men of rare capacity, against whole dynasties of born tyrants.\nAnd yet that proud prerogative stands out on the background of our\nhistory. Within a generation of the Conquest, the Normans were compelled\nto recognise, in some grudging measure, the claims of the English\npeople. When the struggle between Church and State extended to England,\nour Churchmen learned to associate themselves with the popular cause;\nand, with few exceptions, neither the hierarchical spirit of the foreign\ndivines, nor the monarchical bias peculiar to the French, characterised\nthe writers of the English school. The Civil Law, transmitted from the\ndegenerate Empire to be the common prop of absolute power, was excluded\nfrom England. The Canon Law was restrained, and this country never\nadmitted the Inquisition, nor fully accepted the use of torture which\ninvested Continental royalty with so many terrors. At the end of the\nMiddle Ages foreign writers acknowledged our superiority, and pointed to\nthese causes. After that, our gentry maintained the means of local\nself-government such as no other country possessed. Divisions in\nreligion forced toleration. The confusion of the common law taught the\npeople that their best safeguard was the independence and the integrity\nof the judges.\n\nAll these explanations lie on the surface, and are as visible as the\nprotecting ocean; but they can only be successive effects of a constant\ncause which must lie in the same native qualities of perseverance,\nmoderation, individuality, and the manly sense of duty, which give to\nthe English race its supremacy in the stern art of labour, which has\nenabled it to thrive as no other can on inhospitable shores, and which\n(although no great people has less of the bloodthirsty craving for glory\nand an army of 50,000 English soldiers has never been seen in battle)\ncaused Napoleon to exclaim, as he rode away from Waterloo, \"It has\nalways been the same since Crecy.\"\n\nTherefore, if there is reason for pride in the past, there is more for\nhope in the time to come. Our advantages increase, while other nations\nfear their neighbours or covet their neighbours' goods. Anomalies and\ndefects there are, fewer and less intolerable, if not less flagrant than\nof old.\n\nBut I have fixed my eyes on the spaces that Heaven's light illuminates,\nthat I may not lay too heavy a strain on the indulgence with which you\nhave accompanied me over the dreary and heart-breaking course by which\nmen have passed to freedom; and because the light that has guided us is\nstill unquenched, and the causes that have carried us so far in the van\nof free nations have not spent their power; because the story of the\nfuture is written in the past, and that which hath been is the same\nthing that shall be.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 3: An address delivered to the members of the Bridgnorth\nInstitution at the Agricultural Hall, 28th May 1877.]\n\n[Footnote 4: [Poynet, in his _Treatise on Political Power_.]]\n\n\n\n\nIII\n\nSIR ERSKINE MAY'S DEMOCRACY IN EUROPE[5]\n\n\nScarcely thirty years separate the Europe of Guizot and Metternich from\nthese days of universal suffrage both in France and in United Germany;\nwhen a condemned insurgent of 1848 is the constitutional Minister of\nAustria; when Italy, from the Alps to the Adriatic, is governed by\nfriends of Mazzini; and statesmen who recoiled from the temerities of\nPeel have doubled the electoral constituency of England. If the\nphilosopher who proclaimed the law that democratic progress is constant\nand irrepressible had lived to see old age, he would have been startled\nby the fulfilment of his prophecy. Throughout these years of\nrevolutionary change Sir Thomas Erskine May has been more closely and\nconstantly connected with the centre of public affairs than any other\nEnglishman, and his place, during most of the time, has been at the\ntable of the House of Commons, where he has sat, like Canute, and\nwatched the rising tide. Few could be better prepared to be the\nhistorian of European Democracy than one who, having so long studied the\nmechanism of popular government in the most illustrious of assemblies at\nthe height of its power, has written its history, and taught its methods\nto the world.\n\nIt is not strange that so delicate and laborious a task should have\nremained unattempted. Democracy is a gigantic current that has been fed\nby many springs. Physical and spiritual causes have contributed to\nswell it. Much has been done by economic theories, and more by economic\nlaws. The propelling force lay sometimes in doctrine and sometimes in\nfact, and error has been as powerful as truth. Popular progress has been\ndetermined at one time by legislation, at others by a book, an\ninvention, or a crime; and we may trace it to the influence of Greek\nmetaphysicians and Roman jurists, of barbarian custom and ecclesiastical\nlaw, of the reformers who discarded the canonists, the sectaries who\ndiscarded the reformers, and the philosophers who discarded the sects.\nThe scene has changed, as nation succeeded nation, and during the most\nstagnant epoch of European life the new world stored up the forces that\nhave transformed the old.\n\nA history that should pursue all the subtle threads from end to end\nmight be eminently valuable, but not as a tribute to peace and\nconciliation. Few discoveries are more irritating than those which\nexpose the pedigree of ideas. Sharp definitions and unsparing analysis\nwould displace the veil beneath which society dissembles its divisions,\nwould make political disputes too violent for compromise and political\nalliances too precarious for use, and would embitter politics with all\nthe passion of social and religious strife. Sir Erskine May writes for\nall who take their stand within the broad lines of our constitution. His\njudgment is averse from extremes. He turns from the discussion of\ntheories, and examines his subject by the daylight of institutions,\nbelieving that laws depend much on the condition of society, and little\non notions and disputations unsupported by reality. He avows his\ndisbelief even in the influence of Locke, and cares little to inquire\nhow much self-government owes to Independency, or equality to the\nQuakers; and how democracy was affected by the doctrine that society is\nfounded on contract, that happiness is the end of all government, or\nlabour the only source of wealth; and for this reason, because he always\ntouches ground, and brings to bear, on a vast array of sifted fact, the\nlight of sound sense and tried experience rather than dogmatic precept,\nall men will read his book with profit, and almost all without offence.\n\nAlthough he does not insist on inculcating a moral, he has stated in his\nintroductory pages the ideas that guide him; and, indeed, the reader who\nfails to recognise the lesson of the book in every chapter will read in\nvain. Sir Erskine May is persuaded that it is the tendency of modern\nprogress to elevate the masses of the people, to increase their part in\nthe work and the fruit of civilisation, in comfort and education, in\nself-respect and independence, in political knowledge and power. Taken\nfor a universal law of history, this would be as visionary as certain\ngeneralisations of Montesquieu and Tocqueville; but with the necessary\nrestrictions of time and place, it cannot fairly be disputed. Another\nconclusion, supported by a far wider induction, is that democracy, like\nmonarchy, is salutary within limits and fatal in excess; that it is the\ntruest friend of freedom or its most unrelenting foe, according as it is\nmixed or pure; and this ancient and elementary truth of constitutional\ngovernment is enforced with every variety of impressive and suggestive\nillustration from the time of the Patriarchs down to the revolution\nwhich, in 1874, converted federal Switzerland into an unqualified\ndemocracy governed by the direct voice of the entire people.\n\nThe effective distinction between liberty and democracy, which has\noccupied much of the author's thoughts, cannot be too strongly drawn.\nSlavery has been so often associated with democracy, that a very able\nwriter pronounced it long ago essential to a democratic state; and the\nphilosophers of the Southern Confederation have urged the theory with\nextreme fervour. For slavery operates like a restricted franchise,\nattaches power to property, and hinders Socialism, the infirmity that\nattends mature democracies. The most intelligent of Greek tyrants,\nPeriander, discouraged the employment of slaves; and Pericles designates\nthe freedom from manual labour as the distinguishing prerogative of\nAthens. At Rome a tax on manumissions immediately followed the\nestablishment of political equality by Licinius. An impeachment of\nEngland for having imposed slavery on America was carefully expunged\nfrom the Declaration of Independence; and the French Assembly, having\nproclaimed the Rights of Man, declared that they did not extend to the\ncolonies. The abolition controversy has made everybody familiar with\nBurke's saying, that men learn the price of freedom by being masters of\nslaves.\n\nFrom the best days of Athens, the days of Anaxagoras, Protagoras, and\nSocrates, a strange affinity has subsisted between democracy and\nreligious persecution. The bloodiest deed committed between the wars of\nreligion and the revolution was due to the fanaticism of men living\nunder the primitive republic in the Rhaetian Alps; and of six democratic\ncantons only one tolerated Protestants, and that after a struggle which\nlasted the better part of two centuries. In 1578 the fifteen Catholic\nprovinces would have joined the revolted Netherlands but for the furious\nbigotry of Ghent; and the democracy of Friesland was the most intolerant\nof the States. The aristocratic colonies in America defended toleration\nagainst their democratic neighbours, and its triumph in Rhode Island and\nPennsylvania was the work not of policy but of religion. The French\nRepublic came to ruin because it found the lesson of religious liberty\ntoo hard to learn. Down to the eighteenth century, indeed, it was\nunderstood in monarchies more often than in free commonwealths.\nRichelieu acknowledged the principle whilst he was constructing the\ndespotism of the Bourbons; so did the electors of Brandenburg, at the\ntime when they made themselves absolute; and after the fall of\nClarendon, the notion of Indulgence was inseparable from the design of\nCharles II. to subvert the constitution.\n\nA government strong enough to act in defiance of public feeling may\ndisregard the plausible heresy that prevention is better than\npunishment, for it is able to punish. But a government entirely\ndependent on opinion looks for some security what that opinion shall be,\nstrives for the control of the forces that shape it, and is fearful of\nsuffering the people to be educated in sentiments hostile to its\ninstitutions. When General Grant attempted to grapple with polygamy in\nUtah, it was found necessary to pack the juries with Gentiles; and the\nSupreme Court decided that the proceedings were illegal, and that the\nprisoners must be set free. Even the murderer Lee was absolved, in 1875,\nby a jury of Mormons.\n\nModern democracy presents many problems too various and obscure to be\nsolved without a larger range of materials than Tocqueville obtained\nfrom his American authorities or his own observation. To understand why\nthe hopes and the fears that it excites have been always inseparable, to\ndetermine under what conditions it advances or retards the progress of\nthe people and the welfare of free states, there is no better course\nthan to follow Sir Erskine May upon the road which he has been the first\nto open.\n\nIn the midst of an invincible despotism, among paternal, military, and\nsacerdotal monarchies, the dawn rises with the deliverance of Israel out\nof bondage, and with the covenant which began their political life. The\ntribes broke up into smaller communities, administering their own\naffairs under the law they had sworn to observe, but which there was no\ncivil power to enforce. They governed themselves without a central\nauthority, a legislature, or a dominant priesthood; and this polity,\nwhich, under the forms of primitive society, realised some aspirations\nof developed democracy, resisted for above three hundred years the\nconstant peril of anarchy and subjugation. The monarchy itself was\nlimited by the same absence of a legislative power, by the submission of\nthe king to the law that bound his subjects, by the perpetual appeal of\nprophets to the conscience of the people as its appointed guardian, and\nby the ready resource of deposition. Later still, in the decay of the\nreligious and national constitution, the same ideas appeared with\nintense energy, in an extraordinary association of men who lived in\nausterity and self-denial, rejected slavery, maintained equality, and\nheld their property in common, and who constituted in miniature an\nalmost perfect Republic. But the Essenes perished with the city and the\nTemple, and for many ages the example of the Hebrews was more\nserviceable to authority than to freedom. After the Reformation, the\nsects that broke resolutely with the traditions of Church and State as\nthey came down from Catholic times, and sought for their new\ninstitutions a higher authority than custom, reverted to the memory of a\ncommonwealth founded on a voluntary contract, on self-government,\nfederalism, equality, in which election was preferred to inheritance,\nand monarchy was an emblem of the heathen; and they conceived that there\nwas no better model for themselves than a nation constituted by\nreligion, owning no lawgiver but Moses, and obeying no king but God.\nPolitical thought had until then been guided by pagan experience.\n\nAmong the Greeks, Athens, the boldest pioneer of republican discovery,\nwas the only democracy that prospered. It underwent the changes that\nwere the common lot of Greek society, but it met them in a way that\ndisplayed a singular genius for politics. The struggle of competing\nclasses for supremacy, almost everywhere a cause of oppression and\nbloodshed, became with them a genuine struggle for freedom; and the\nAthenian constitution grew, with little pressure from below, under the\nintelligent action of statesmen who were swayed by political reasoning\nmore than by public opinion. They avoided violent and convulsive change,\nbecause the rate of their reforms kept ahead of the popular demand.\nSolon, whose laws began the reign of mind over force, instituted\ndemocracy by making the people, not indeed the administrators, but the\nsource of power. He committed the Government not to rank or birth, but\nto land; and he regulated the political influence of the landowners by\ntheir share in the burdens of the public service. To the lower class,\nwho neither bore arms nor paid taxes, and were excluded from the\nGovernment, he granted the privilege of choosing and of calling to\naccount the men by whom they were governed, of confirming or rejecting\nthe acts of the legislature and the judgments of the courts. Although he\ncharged the Areopagus with the preservation of his laws, he provided\nthat they might be revised according to need; and the ideal before his\nmind was government by all free citizens. His concessions to the popular\nelement were narrow, and were carefully guarded. He yielded no more than\nwas necessary to guarantee the attachment of the whole people to the\nState. But he admitted principles that went further than the claims\nwhich he conceded. He took only one step towards democracy, but it was\nthe first of a series.\n\nWhen the Persian wars, which converted aristocratic Athens into a\nmaritime state, had developed new sources of wealth and a new\ndescription of interests, the class which had supplied many of the ships\nand most of the men that had saved the national independence and founded\nan empire, could not be excluded from power. Solon's principle, that\npolitical influence should be commensurate with political service, broke\nthrough the forms in which he had confined it, and the spirit of his\nconstitution was too strong for the letter. The fourth estate was\nadmitted to office, and in order that its candidates might obtain their\nshare, and no more than their share, and that neither interest nor\nnumbers might prevail, many public functionaries were appointed by lot.\nThe Athenian idea of a Republic was to substitute the impersonal\nsupremacy of law for the government of men. Mediocrity was a safeguard\nagainst the pretensions of superior capacity, for the established order\nwas in danger, not from the average citizens, but from men, like\nMiltiades, of exceptional renown. The people of Athens venerated their\nconstitution as a gift of the gods, the source and title of their power,\na thing too sacred for wanton change. They had demanded a code, that the\nunwritten law might no longer be interpreted at will by Archons and\nAreopagites; and a well-defined and authoritative legislation was a\ntriumph of the democracy.\n\nSo well was this conservative spirit understood, that the revolution\nwhich abolished the privileges of the aristocracy was promoted by\nAristides and completed by Pericles, men free from the reproach of\nflattering the multitude. They associated all the free Athenians with\nthe interest of the State, and called them, without distinction of\nclass, to administer the powers that belonged to them. Solon had\nthreatened with the loss of citizenship all who showed themselves\nindifferent in party conflicts, and Pericles declared that every man who\nneglected his share of public duty was a useless member of the\ncommunity. That wealth might confer no unfair advantage, that the poor\nmight not take bribes from the rich, he took them into the pay of the\nState during their attendance as jurors. That their numbers might give\nthem no unjust superiority, he restricted the right of citizenship to\nthose who came from Athenian parents on both sides; and thus he expelled\nmore than 4000 men of mixed descent from the Assembly. This bold\nmeasure, which was made acceptable by a distribution of grain from Egypt\namong those who proved their full Athenian parentage, reduced the fourth\nclass to an equality with the owners of real property. For Pericles, or\nEphialtes--for it would appear that all their reforms had been carried\nin the year 460, when Ephialtes died--is the first democratic statesman\nwho grasped the notion of political equality. The measures which made\nall citizens equal might have created a new inequality between classes,\nand the artificial privilege of land might have been succeeded by the\nmore crushing preponderance of numbers. But Pericles held it to be\nintolerable that one portion of the people should be required to obey\nlaws which others have the exclusive right of making; and he was able,\nduring thirty years, to preserve the equipoise, governing by the general\nconsent of the community, formed by free debate. He made the undivided\npeople sovereign; but he subjected the popular initiative to a court of\nrevision, and assigned a penalty to the proposer of any measure which\nshould be found to be unconstitutional. Athens, under Pericles, was the\nmost successful Republic that existed before the system of\nrepresentation; but its splendour ended with his life.\n\nThe danger to liberty from the predominance either of privilege or\nmajorities was so manifest, that an idea arose that equality of fortune\nwould be the only way to prevent the conflict of class interests. The\nphilosophers, Phaleas, Plato, Aristotle, suggested various expedients to\nlevel the difference between rich and poor. Solon had endeavoured to\ncheck the increase of estates; and Pericles had not only strengthened\nthe public resources by bringing the rich under the control of an\nassembly in which they were not supreme, but he had employed those\nresources in improving the condition and the capacity of the masses. The\ngrievance of those who were taxed for the benefit of others was easily\nborne so long as the tribute of the confederates filled the treasury.\nBut the Peloponnesian war increased the strain on the revenue and\ndeprived Athens of its dependencies. The balance was upset; and the\npolicy of making one class give, that another might receive, was\nrecommended not only by the interest of the poor, but by a growing\ntheory, that wealth and poverty make bad citizens, that the middle class\nis the one most easily led by reason, and that the way to make it\npredominate is to depress whatever rises above the common level, and to\nraise whatever falls below it. This theory, which became inseparable\nfrom democracy, and contained a force which alone seems able to destroy\nit, was fatal to Athens, for it drove the minority to treason. The glory\nof the Athenian democrats is, not that they escaped the worst\nconsequences of their principle, but that, having twice cast out the\nusurping oligarchy, they set bounds to their own power. They forgave\ntheir vanquished enemies; they abolished pay for attendance in the\nassembly; they established the supremacy of law by making the code\nsuperior to the people; they distinguished things that were\nconstitutional from things that were legal, and resolved that no\nlegislative act should pass until it had been pronounced consistent with\nthe constitution.\n\nThe causes which ruined the Republic of Athens illustrate the connection\nof ethics with politics rather than the vices inherent to democracy. A\nState which has only 30,000 full citizens in a population of 500,000,\nand is governed, practically, by about 3000 people at a public meeting,\nis scarcely democratic. The short triumph of Athenian liberty, and its\nquick decline, belong to an age which possessed no fixed standard of\nright and wrong. An unparalleled activity of intellect was shaking the\ncredit of the gods, and the gods were the givers of the law. It was a\nvery short step from the suspicion of Protagoras, that there were no\ngods, to the assertion of Critias that there is no sanction for laws. If\nnothing was certain in theology, there was no certainty in ethics and no\nmoral obligation. The will of man, not the will of God, was the rule of\nlife, and every man and body of men had the right to do what they had\nthe means of doing. Tyranny was no wrong, and it was hypocrisy to deny\noneself the enjoyment it affords. The doctrine of the Sophists gave no\nlimits to power and no security to freedom; it inspired that cry of the\nAthenians, that they must not be hindered from doing what they pleased,\nand the speeches of men like Athenagoras and Euphemus, that the\ndemocracy may punish men who have done no wrong, and that nothing that\nis profitable is amiss. And Socrates perished by the reaction which they\nprovoked.\n\nThe disciples of Socrates obtained the ear of posterity. Their testimony\nagainst the government that put the best of citizens to death is\nenshrined in writings that compete with Christianity itself for\ninfluence on the opinions of men. Greece has governed the world by her\nphilosophy, and the loudest note in Greek philosophy is the protest\nagainst Athenian democracy. But although Socrates derided the practice\nof leaving the choice of magistrates to chance, and Plato admired the\nbloodstained tyrant Critias, and Aristotle deemed Theramenes a greater\nstatesman than Pericles, yet these are the men who laid the first stones\nof a purer system, and became the lawgivers of future commonwealths.\n\nThe main point in the method of Socrates was essentially democratic. He\nurged men to bring all things to the test of incessant inquiry, and not\nto content themselves with the verdict of authorities, majorities, or\ncustom; to judge of right and wrong, not by the will or sentiment of\nothers, but by the light which God has set in each man's reason and\nconscience. He proclaimed that authority is often wrong, and has no\nwarrant to silence or to impose conviction. But he gave no warrant to\nresistance. He emancipated men for thought, but not for action. The\nsublime history of his death shows that the superstition of the State\nwas undisturbed by his contempt for its rulers.\n\nPlato had not his master's patriotism, nor his reverence for the civil\npower. He believed that no State can command obedience if it does not\ndeserve respect; and he encouraged citizens to despise their government\nif they were not governed by wise men. To the aristocracy of\nphilosophers he assigned a boundless prerogative; but as no government\nsatisfied that test, his plea for despotism was hypothetical. When the\nlapse of years roused him from the fantastic dream of his Republic, his\nbelief in divine government moderated his intolerance of human freedom.\nPlato would not suffer a democratic polity; but he challenged all\nexisting authorities to justify themselves before a superior tribunal;\nhe desired that all constitutions should be thoroughly remodelled, and\nhe supplied the greatest need of Greek democracy, the conviction that\nthe will of the people is subject to the will of God, and that all civil\nauthority, except that of an imaginary state, is limited and\nconditional. The prodigious vitality of his writings has kept the\nglaring perils of popular government constantly before mankind; but it\nhas also preserved the belief in ideal politics and the notion of\njudging the powers of this world by a standard from heaven. There has\nbeen no fiercer enemy of democracy; but there has been no stronger\nadvocate of revolution.\n\nIn the _Ethics_ Aristotle condemns democracy, even with a property\nqualification, as the worst of governments. But near the end of his\nlife, when he composed his _Politics_, he was brought, grudgingly, to\nmake a memorable concession. To preserve the sovereignty of law, which\nis the reason and the custom of generations, and to restrict the realm\nof choice and change, he conceived it best that no class of society\nshould preponderate, that one man should not be subject to another, that\nall should command and all obey. He advised that power should be\ndistributed to high and low; to the first according to their property,\nto the others according to numbers; and that it should centre in the\nmiddle class. If aristocracy and democracy were fairly combined and\nbalanced against each other, he thought that none would be interested to\ndisturb the serene majesty of impersonal government. To reconcile the\ntwo principles, he would admit even the poorer citizens to office and\npay them for the discharge of public duties; but he would compel the\nrich to take their share, and would appoint magistrates by election and\nnot by lot. In his indignation at the extravagance of Plato, and his\nsense of the significance of facts, he became, against his will, the\nprophetic exponent of a limited and regenerated democracy. But the\n_Politics_, which, to the world of living men, is the most valuable of\nhis works, acquired no influence on antiquity, and is never quoted\nbefore the time of Cicero. Again it disappeared for many centuries; it\nwas unknown to the Arabian commentators, and in Western Europe it was\nfirst brought to light by St. Thomas Aquinas, at the very time when an\ninfusion of popular elements was modifying feudalism, and it helped to\nemancipate political philosophy from despotic theories and to confirm it\nin the ways of freedom.\n\nThe three generations of the Socratic school did more for the future\nreign of the people than all the institutions of the States of Greece.\nThey vindicated conscience against authority, and subjected both to a\nhigher law; and they proclaimed that doctrine of a mixed constitution,\nwhich has prevailed at last over absolute monarchy, and still has to\ncontend against extreme Republicans and Socialists, and against the\nmasters of a hundred legions. But their views of liberty were based on\nexpediency, not on justice. They legislated for the favoured citizens of\nGreece, and were conscious of no principle that extended the same rights\nto the stranger and the slave. That discovery, without which all\npolitical science was merely conventional, belongs to the followers of\nZeno.\n\nThe dimness and poverty of their theological speculation caused the\nStoics to attribute the government of the universe less to the uncertain\ndesign of gods than to a definite law of nature. By that law, which is\nsuperior to religious traditions and national authorities, and which\nevery man can learn from a guardian angel who neither sleeps nor errs,\nall are governed alike, all are equal, all are bound in charity to each\nother, as members of one community and children of the same God. The\nunity of mankind implied the existence of rights and duties common to\nall men, which legislation neither gives nor takes away. The Stoics held\nin no esteem the institutions that vary with time and place, and their\nideal society resembled a universal Church more than an actual State. In\nevery collision between authority and conscience they preferred the\ninner to the outer guide; and, in the words of Epictetus, regarded the\nlaws of the gods, not the wretched laws of the dead. Their doctrine of\nequality, of fraternity, of humanity; their defence of individualism\nagainst public authority; their repudiation of slavery, redeemed\ndemocracy from the narrowness, the want of principle and of sympathy,\nwhich are its reproach among the Greeks. In practical life they\npreferred a mixed constitution to a purely popular government.\nChrysippus thought it impossible to please both gods and men; and Seneca\ndeclared that the people is corrupt and incapable, and that nothing was\nwanting, under Nero, to the fulness of liberty, except the possibility\nof destroying it. But their lofty conception of freedom, as no\nexceptional privilege but the birthright of mankind, survived in the law\nof nations and purified the equity of Rome.\n\nWhilst Dorian oligarchs and Macedonian kings crushed the liberties of\nGreece, the Roman Republic was ruined, not by its enemies, for there was\nno enemy it did not conquer, but by its own vices. It was free from many\ncauses of instability and dissolution that were active in Greece--the\neager quickness, the philosophic thought, the independent belief, the\npursuit of unsubstantial grace and beauty. It was protected by many\nsubtle contrivances against the sovereignty of numbers and against\nlegislation by surprise. Constitutional battles had to be fought over\nand over again; and progress was so slow, that reforms were often voted\nmany years before they could be carried into effect. The authority\nallowed to fathers, to masters, to creditors, was as incompatible with\nthe spirit of freedom as the practice of the servile East. The Roman\ncitizen revelled in the luxury of power; and his jealous dread of every\nchange that might impair its enjoyment portended a gloomy oligarchy. The\ncause which transformed the domination of rigid and exclusive patricians\ninto the model Republic, and which out of the decomposed Republic built\nup the archetype of all despotism, was the fact that the Roman\nCommonwealth consisted of two States in one. The constitution was made\nup of compromises between independent bodies, and the obligation of\nobserving contracts was the standing security for freedom. The plebs\nobtained self-government and an equal sovereignty, by the aid of the\ntribunes of the people, the peculiar, salient, and decisive invention of\nRoman statecraft. The powers conferred on the tribunes, that they might\nbe the guardians of the weak, were ill defined, but practically were\nirresistible. They could not govern, but they could arrest all\ngovernment. The first and the last step of plebeian progress was gained\nneither by violence nor persuasion, but by seceding; and, in like\nmanner, the tribunes overcame all the authorities of the State by the\nweapon of obstruction. It was by stopping public business for five years\nthat Licinius established democratic equality. The safeguard against\nabuse was the right of each tribune to veto the acts of his colleagues.\nAs they were independent of their electors, and as there could hardly\nfail to be one wise and honest man among the ten, this was the most\neffective instrument for the defence of minorities ever devised by man.\nAfter the Hortensian law, which in the year 286 gave to the plebeian\nassembly co-ordinate legislative authority, the tribunes ceased to\nrepresent the cause of a minority, and their work was done.\n\nA scheme less plausible or less hopeful than one which created two\nsovereign legislatures side by side in the same community would be hard\nto find. Yet it effectually closed the conflict of centuries, and gave\nto Rome an epoch of constant prosperity and greatness. No real division\nsubsisted in the people, corresponding to the artificial division in the\nState. Fifty years passed away before the popular assembly made use of\nits prerogative, and passed a law in opposition to the senate. Polybius\ncould not detect a flaw in the structure as it stood. The harmony seemed\nto be complete, and he judged that a more perfect example of composite\ngovernment could not exist. But during those happy years the cause which\nwrought the ruin of Roman freedom was in full activity; for it was the\ncondition of perpetual war that brought about the three great changes\nwhich were the beginning of the end--the reforms of the Gracchi, the\narming of the paupers, and the gift of the Roman suffrage to the people\nof Italy.\n\nBefore the Romans began their career of foreign conquest they possessed\nan army of 770,000 men; and from that time the consumption of citizens\nin war was incessant. Regions once crowded with the small freeholds of\nfour or five acres, which were the ideal unit of Roman society and the\nsinew of the army and the State, were covered with herds of cattle and\nherds of slaves, and the substance of the governing democracy was\ndrained. The policy of the agrarian reform was to reconstitute this\npeasant class out of the public domains, that is, out of lands which the\nruling families had possessed for generations, which they had bought and\nsold, inherited, divided, cultivated, and improved. The conflict of\ninterests that had so long slumbered revived with a fury unknown in the\ncontroversy between the patricians and the plebs. For it was now a\nquestion not Of equal rights but of subjugation. The social restoration\nof democratic elements could not be accomplished without demolishing the\nsenate; and this crisis at last exposed the defect of the machinery and\nthe peril of divided powers that were not to be controlled or\nreconciled. The popular assembly, led by Gracchus, had the power of\nmaking laws; and the only constitutional check was, that one of the\ntribunes should be induced to bar the proceedings. Accordingly, the\ntribune Octavius interposed his veto. The tribunician power, the most\nsacred of powers, which could not be questioned because it was founded\non a covenant between the two parts of the community and formed the\nkeystone of their union, was employed, in opposition to the will of the\npeople, to prevent a reform on which the preservation of the democracy\ndepended. Gracchus caused Octavius to be deposed. Though not illegal,\nthis was a thing unheard of, and it seemed to the Romans a sacrilegious\nact that shook the pillars of the State, for it was the first\nsignificant revelation of democratic sovereignty. A tribune might burn\nthe arsenal and betray the city, yet he could not be called to account\nuntil his year of office had expired. But when he employed against the\npeople the authority with which they had invested him, the spell was\ndissolved. The tribunes had been instituted as the champions of the\noppressed, when the plebs feared oppression. It was resolved that they\nshould not interfere on the weaker side when the democracy were the\nstrongest. They were chosen by the people as their defence against the\naristocracy. It was not to be borne that they should become the agents\nof the aristocracy to make them once more supreme. Against a popular\ntribune, whom no colleague was suffered to oppose, the wealthy classes\nwere defenceless. It is true that he held office, and was inviolable,\nonly for a year. But the younger Gracchus was re-elected. The nobles\naccused him of aiming at the crown. A tribune who should be practically\nirremovable, as well as legally irresistible, was little less than an\nemperor. The senate carried on the conflict as men do who fight, not for\npublic interests but for their own existence. They rescinded the\nagrarian laws. They murdered the popular leaders. They abandoned the\nconstitution to save themselves, and invested Sylla with a power beyond\nall monarchs, to exterminate their foes. The ghastly conception of a\nmagistrate legally proclaimed superior to all the laws was familiar to\nthe stern spirit of the Romans. The decemvirs had enjoyed that arbitrary\nauthority; but practically they were restrained by the two provisions\nwhich alone were deemed efficacious in Rome, the short duration of\noffice, and its distribution among several colleagues. But the\nappointment of Sylla was neither limited nor divided. It was to last as\nlong as he chose. Whatever he might do was right; and he was empowered\nto put whomsoever he pleased to death, without trial or accusation. All\nthe victims who were butchered by his satellites suffered with the full\nsanction of the law.\n\nWhen at last the democracy conquered, the Augustan monarchy, by which\nthey perpetuated their triumph, was moderate in comparison with the\nlicensed tyranny of the aristocratic chief. The Emperor was the\nconstitutional head of the Republic, armed with all the powers requisite\nto master the senate. The instrument which had served to cast down the\npatricians was efficient against the new aristocracy of wealth and\noffice. The tribunician power, conferred in perpetuity, made it\nunnecessary to create a king or a dictator. Thrice the senate proposed\nto Augustus the supreme power of making laws. He declared that the power\nof the tribunes already supplied him with all that he required. It\nenabled him to preserve the forms of a simulated republic. The most\npopular of all the magistracies of Rome furnished the marrow of\nImperialism. For the Empire was created, not by usurpation, but by the\nlegal act of a jubilant people, eager to close the era of bloodshed and\nto secure the largess of grain and coin, which amounted, at last, to\n900,000 pounds a year. The people transferred to the Emperor the\nplenitude of their own sovereignty. To limit his delegated power was to\nchallenge their omnipotence, to renew the issue between the many and the\nfew which had been decided at Pharsalus and Philippi. The Romans upheld\nthe absolutism of the Empire because it was their own. The elementary\nantagonism between liberty and democracy, between the welfare of\nminorities and the supremacy of masses, became manifest. The friend of\nthe one was a traitor to the other. The dogma, that absolute power may,\nby the hypothesis of a popular origin, be as legitimate as\nconstitutional freedom, began, by the combined support of the people and\nthe throne, to darken the air.\n\nLegitimate, in the technical sense of modern politics, the Empire was\nnot meant to be. It had no right or claim to subsist apart from the will\nof the people. To limit the Emperor's authority was to renounce their\nown; but to take it away was to assert their own. They gave the Empire\nas they chose. They took it away as they chose. The Revolution was as\nlawful and as irresponsible as the Empire. Democratic institutions\ncontinued to develop. The provinces were no longer subject to an\nassembly meeting in a distant capital. They obtained the privileges of\nRoman citizens. Long after Tiberius had stripped the inhabitants of Rome\nof their electoral function, the provincials continued in undisturbed\nenjoyment of the right of choosing their own magistrates. They governed\nthemselves like a vast confederation of municipal republics; and, even\nafter Diocletian had brought in the forms as well as the reality of\ndespotism, provincial assemblies, the obscure germ of representative\ninstitutions, exercised some control over the Imperial officers.\n\nBut the Empire owed the intensity of its force to the popular fiction.\nThe principle, that the Emperor is not subject to laws from which he can\ndispense others, _princeps legibus solutus_, was interpreted to imply\nthat he was above all legal restraint. There was no appeal from his\nsentence. He was the living law. The Roman jurists, whilst they adorned\ntheir writings with the exalted philosophy of the Stoics, consecrated\nevery excess of Imperial prerogative with those famous maxims which have\nbeen balm to so many consciences and have sanctioned so much wrong; and\nthe code of Justinian became the greatest obstacle, next to feudalism,\nwith which liberty had to contend.\n\nAncient democracy, as it was in Athens in the best days of Pericles, or\nin Rome when Polybius described it, or even as it is idealised by\nAristotle in the Sixth Book of his _Politics_, and by Cicero in the\nbeginning of the Republic, was never more than a partial and insincere\nsolution of the problem of popular government. The ancient politicians\naimed no higher than to diffuse power among a numerous class. Their\nliberty was bound up with slavery. They never attempted to found a free\nState on the thrift and energy of free labour. They never divined the\nharder but more grateful task that constitutes the political life of\nChristian nations.\n\nBy humbling the supremacy of rank and wealth; by forbidding the State to\nencroach on the domain which belongs to God; by teaching man to love his\nneighbour as himself; by promoting the sense of equality; by condemning\nthe pride of race, which was a stimulus of conquest, and the doctrine of\nseparate descent, which formed the philosopher's defence of slavery; and\nby addressing not the rulers but the masses of mankind, and making\nopinion superior to authority, the Church that preached the Gospel to\nthe poor had visible points of contact with democracy. And yet\nChristianity did not directly influence political progress. The ancient\nwatchword of the Republic was translated by Papinian into the language\nof the Church: \"Summa est ratio quae pro religione fiat:\" and for eleven\nhundred years, from the first to the last of the Constantines, the\nChristian Empire was as despotic as the pagan.\n\nMeanwhile Western Europe was overrun by men who in their early home had\nbeen Republicans. The primitive constitution of the German communities\nwas based on association rather than on subordination. They were\naccustomed to govern their affairs by common deliberation, and to obey\nauthorities that were temporary and defined. It is one of the desperate\nenterprises of historical science to trace the free institutions of\nEurope and America, and Australia, to the life that was led in the\nforests of Germany. But the new States were founded on conquest, and in\nwar the Germans were commanded by kings. The doctrine of\nself-government, applied to Gaul and Spain, would have made Frank and\nGoth disappear in the mass of the conquered people. It needed all the\nresources of a vigorous monarchy, of a military aristocracy, and of a\nterritorial clergy, to construct States that were able to last. The\nresult was the feudal system, the most absolute contradiction of\ndemocracy that has coexisted with civilisation.\n\nThe revival of democracy was due neither to the Christian Church nor to\nthe Teutonic State, but to the quarrel between them. The effect followed\nthe cause instantaneously. As soon as Gregory VII. made the Papacy\nindependent of the Empire, the great conflict began; and the same\npontificate gave birth to the theory of the sovereignty of the people.\nThe Gregorian party argued that the Emperor derived his crown from the\nnation, and that the nation could take away what it had bestowed. The\nImperialists replied that nobody could take away what the nation had\ngiven. It is idle to look for the spark either in flint or steel. The\nobject of both parties was unqualified supremacy. Fitznigel has no more\nidea of ecclesiastical liberty than John of Salisbury of political.\nInnocent IV. is as perfect an absolutist as Peter de Vineis. But each\nparty encouraged democracy in turn, by seeking the aid of the towns;\neach party in turn appealed to the people, and gave strength to the\nconstitutional theory. In the fourteenth century English Parliaments\njudged and deposed their kings, as a matter of right; the Estates\ngoverned France without king or noble; and the wealth and liberties of\nthe towns, which had worked out their independence from the centre of\nItaly to the North Sea, promised for a moment to transform European\nsociety. Even in the capitals of great princes, in Rome, in Paris, and,\nfor two terrible days, in London, the commons obtained sway. But the\ncurse of instability was on the municipal republics. Strasburg,\naccording to Erasmus and Bodin, the best governed of all, suffered from\nperpetual commotions. An ingenious historian has reckoned seven thousand\nrevolutions in the Italian cities. The democracies succeeded no better\nthan feudalism in regulating the balance between rich and poor. The\natrocities of the Jacquerie, and of Wat Tyler's rebellion, hardened the\nhearts of men against the common people. Church and State combined to\nput them down. And the last memorable struggles of mediaeval liberty--the\ninsurrection of the Comuneros in Castile, the Peasants' War in Germany,\nthe Republic of Florence, and the Revolt of Ghent--were suppressed by\nCharles V. in the early years of the Reformation.\n\nThe middle ages had forged a complete arsenal of constitutional maxims:\ntrial by jury, taxation by representation, local self-government,\necclesiastical independence, responsible authority. But they were not\nsecured by institutions, and the Reformation began by making the dry\nbones more dry. Luther claimed to be the first divine who did justice to\nthe civil power. He made the Lutheran Church the bulwark of political\nstability, and bequeathed to his disciples the doctrine of divine right\nand passive obedience. Zwingli, who was a staunch republican, desired\nthat all magistrates should be elected, and should be liable to be\ndismissed by their electors; but he died too soon for his influence, and\nthe permanent action of the Reformation on democracy was exercised\nthrough the Presbyterian constitution of Calvin.\n\nIt was long before the democratic element in Presbyterianism began to\ntell. The Netherlands resisted Philip II. for fifteen years before they\ntook courage to depose him, and the scheme of the ultra-Calvinist\nDeventer, to subvert the ascendency of the leading States by the\nsovereign action of the whole people, was foiled by Leicester's\nincapacity, and by the consummate policy of Barnevelt. The Huguenots,\nhaving lost their leaders in 1572, reconstituted themselves on a\ndemocratic footing, and learned to think that a king who murders his\nsubjects forfeits his divine right to be obeyed. But Junius Brutus and\nBuchanan damaged their credit by advocating regicide; and Hotoman, whose\n_Franco-Gallia_ is the most serious work of the group, deserted his\nliberal opinions when the chief of his own party became king. The most\nviolent explosion of democracy in that age proceeded from the opposite\nquarter. When Henry of Navarre became the next heir to the throne of\nFrance, the theory of the deposing power, which had proved ineffectual\nfor more than a century, awoke with a new and more vigorous life.\nOne-half of the nation accepted the view, that they were not bound to\nsubmit to a king they would not have chosen. A Committee of Sixteen made\nitself master of Paris, and, with the aid of Spain, succeeded for years\nin excluding Henry from his capital. The impulse thus given endured in\nliterature for a whole generation, and produced a library of treatises\non the right of Catholics to choose, to control, and to cashier their\nmagistrates. They were on the losing side. Most of them were\nbloodthirsty, and were soon forgotten. But the greater part of the\npolitical ideas of Milton, Locke, and Rousseau, may be found in the\nponderous Latin of Jesuits who were subjects of the Spanish Crown, of\nLessius, Molina, Mariana, and Suarez.\n\nThe ideas were there, and were taken up when it suited them by extreme\nadherents of Rome and of Geneva; but they produced no lasting fruit\nuntil, a century after the Reformation, they became incorporated in new\nreligious systems. Five years of civil war could not exhaust the\nroyalism of the Presbyterians, and it required the expulsion of the\nmajority to make the Long Parliament abandon monarchy. It had defended\nthe constitution against the crown with legal arts, defending precedent\nagainst innovation, and setting up an ideal in the past which, with all\nthe learning of Selden and of Prynne, was less certain than the Puritan\nstatesmen supposed. The Independents brought in a new principle.\nTradition had no authority for them, and the past no virtue. Liberty of\nconscience, a thing not to be found in the constitution, was more prized\nby many of them than all the statutes of the Plantagenets. Their idea\nthat each congregation should govern itself abolished the force which is\nneeded to preserve unity, and deprived monarchy of the weapon which made\nit injurious to freedom. An immense revolutionary energy resided in\ntheir doctrine, and it took root in America, and deeply coloured\npolitical thought in later times. But in England the sectarian democracy\nwas strong only to destroy. Cromwell refused to be bound by it; and John\nLilburne, the boldest thinker among English democrats, declared that it\nwould be better for liberty to bring back Charles Stuart than to live\nunder the sword of the Protector.\n\nLilburne was among the first to understand the real conditions of\ndemocracy, and the obstacle to its success in England. Equality of power\ncould not be preserved, except by violence, together with an extreme\ninequality of possessions. There would always be danger, if power was\nnot made to wait on property, that property would go to those who had\nthe power. This idea of the necessary balance of property, developed by\nHarrington, and adopted by Milton in his later pamphlets, appeared to\nToland, and even to John Adams, as important as the invention of\nprinting, or the discovery of the circulation of the blood. At least it\nindicates the true explanation of the strange completeness with which\nthe Republican party had vanished, a dozen years after the solemn trial\nand execution of the King. No extremity of misgovernment was able to\nrevive it. When the treason of Charles II. against the constitution was\ndivulged, and the Whigs plotted to expel the incorrigible dynasty, their\naspirations went no farther than a Venetian oligarchy, with Monmouth for\nDoge. The Revolution of 1688 confined power to the aristocracy of\nfreeholders. The conservatism of the age was unconquerable.\nRepublicanism was distorted even in Switzerland, and became in the\neighteenth century as oppressive and as intolerant as its neighbours.\n\nIn 1769, when Paoli fled from Corsica, it seemed that, in Europe at\nleast, democracy was dead. It had, indeed, lately been defended in books\nby a man of bad reputation, whom the leaders of public opinion treated\nwith contumely, and whose declamations excited so little alarm that\nGeorge III. offered him a pension. What gave to Rousseau a power far\nexceeding that which any political writer had ever attained was the\nprogress of events in America. The Stuarts had been willing that the\ncolonies should serve as a refuge from their system of Church and State,\nand of all their colonies the one most favoured was the territory\ngranted to William Penn. By the principles of the Society to which he\nbelonged, it was necessary that the new State should be founded on\nliberty and equality. But Penn was further noted among Quakers as a\nfollower of the new doctrine of Toleration. Thus it came to pass that\nPennsylvania enjoyed the most democratic constitution in the world, and\nheld up to the admiration of the eighteenth century an almost solitary\nexample of freedom. It was principally through Franklin and the Quaker\nState that America influenced political opinion in Europe, and that the\nfanaticism of one revolutionary epoch was converted into the rationalism\nof another. American independence was the beginning of a new era, not\nmerely as a revival of Revolution, but because no other Revolution ever\nproceeded from so slight a cause, or was ever conducted with so much\nmoderation. The European monarchies supported it. The greatest statesmen\nin England averred that it was just. It established a pure democracy;\nbut it was democracy in its highest perfection, armed and vigilant, less\nagainst aristocracy and monarchy than against its own weakness and\nexcess. Whilst England was admired for the safeguards with which, in the\ncourse of many centuries, it had fortified liberty against the power of\nthe crown, America appeared still more worthy of admiration for the\nsafeguards which, in the deliberations of a single memorable year, it\nhad set up against the power of its own sovereign people. It resembled\nno other known democracy, for it respected freedom, authority, and law.\nIt resembled no other constitution, for it was contained in half a dozen\nintelligible articles. Ancient Europe opened its mind to two new\nideas--that Revolution with very little provocation may be just; and\nthat democracy in very large dimensions may be safe.\n\nWhilst America was making itself independent, the spirit of reform had\nbeen abroad in Europe. Intelligent ministers, like Campomanes and\nStruensee, and well-meaning monarchs, of whom the most liberal was\nLeopold of Tuscany, were trying what could be done to make men happy by\ncommand. Centuries of absolute and intolerant rule had bequeathed abuses\nwhich nothing but the most vigorous use of power could remove. The age\npreferred the reign of intellect to the reign of liberty. Turgot, the\nablest and most far-seeing reformer then living, attempted to do for\nFrance what less gifted men were doing with success in Lombardy, and\nTuscany, and Parma. He attempted to employ the royal power for the good\nof the people, at the expense of the higher classes. The higher classes\nproved too strong for the crown alone; and Louis XVI. abandoned internal\nreforms in despair, and turned for compensation to a war with England\nfor the deliverance of her American Colonies. When the increasing debt\nobliged him to seek heroic remedies, and he was again repulsed by the\nprivileged orders, he appealed at last to the nation. When the\nStates-General met, the power had already passed to the middle class,\nfor it was by them alone that the country could be saved. They were\nstrong enough to triumph by waiting. Neither the Court, nor the nobles,\nnor the army, could do anything against them. During the six months from\nJanuary 1789 to the fall of the Bastille in July, France travelled as\nfar as England in the six hundred years between the Earl of Leicester\nand Lord Beaconsfield. Ten years after the American alliance, the Rights\nof Man, which had been proclaimed at Philadelphia, were repeated at\nVersailles. The alliance had borne fruit on both sides of the Atlantic,\nand for France, the fruit was the triumph of American ideas over\nEnglish. They were more popular, more simple, more effective against\nprivilege, and, strange to say, more acceptable to the King. The new\nFrench constitution allowed no privileged orders, no parliamentary\nministry, no power of dissolution, and only a suspensive veto. But the\ncharacteristic safeguards of the American Government were rejected:\nFederalism, separation of Church and State, the Second Chamber, the\npolitical arbitration of the supreme judicial body. That which weakened\nthe Executive was taken: that which restrained the Legislature was left.\nChecks on the crown abounded; but should the crown be vacant, the powers\nthat remained would be without a check. The precautions were all in one\ndirection. Nobody would contemplate the contingency that there might be\nno king. The constitution was inspired by a profound disbelief in Louis\nXVI. and a pertinacious belief in monarchy. The assembly voted without\ndebate, by acclamation, a Civil List three times as large as that of\nQueen Victoria. When Louis fled, and the throne was actually vacant,\nthey brought him back to it, preferring the phantom of a king who was a\nprisoner to the reality of no king at all.\n\nNext to this misapplication of American examples, which was the fault of\nnearly all the leading statesmen, excepting Mounier, Mirabeau, and\nSieyes, the cause of the Revolution was injured by its religious policy.\nThe most novel and impressive lesson taught by the fathers of the\nAmerican Republic was that the people, and not the administration,\nshould govern. Men in office were salaried agents, by whom the nation\nwrought its will. Authority submitted to public opinion, and left to it\nnot only the control, but the initiative of government. Patience in\nwaiting for a wind, alacrity in catching it, the dread of exerting\nunnecessary influence, characterise the early presidents. Some of the\nFrench politicians shared this view, though with less exaggeration than\nWashington. They wished to decentralise the government, and to obtain,\nfor good or evil, the genuine expression of popular sentiment. Necker\nhimself, and Buzot, the most thoughtful of the Girondins, dreamed of\nfederalising France. In the United States there was no current of\nopinion, and no combination of forces, to be seriously feared. The\ngovernment needed no security against being propelled in a wrong\ndirection. But the French Revolution was accomplished at the expense of\npowerful classes. Besides the nobles, the Assembly, which had been made\nsupreme by the accession of the clergy, and had been led at first by\npopular ecclesiastics, by Sieyes, Talleyrand, Cice, La Luzerne, made an\nenemy of the clergy. The prerogative could not be destroyed without\ntouching the Church. Ecclesiastical patronage had helped to make the\ncrown absolute. To leave it in the hands of Louis and his ministers was\nto renounce the entire policy of the constitution. To disestablish, was\nto make it over to the Pope. It was consistent with the democratic\nprinciple to introduce election into the Church. It involved a breach\nwith Rome; but so, indeed, did the laws of Joseph II., Charles III., and\nLeopold. The Pope was not likely to cast away the friendship of France,\nif he could help it; and the French clergy were not likely to give\ntrouble by their attachment to Rome. Therefore, amid the indifference of\nmany, and against the urgent, and probably sincere, remonstrances of\nRobespierre and Marat, the Jansenists, who had a century of persecution\nto avenge, carried the Civil Constitution. The coercive measures which\nenforced it led to the breach with the King, and the fall of the\nmonarchy; to the revolt of the provinces, and the fall of liberty. The\nJacobins determined that public opinion should not reign, that the State\nshould not remain at the mercy of powerful combinations. They held the\nrepresentatives of the people under control, by the people itself. They\nattributed higher authority to the direct than to the indirect voice of\nthe democratic oracle. They armed themselves with power to crush every\nadverse, every independent force, and especially to put down the\nChurch, in whose cause the provinces had risen against the capital. They\nmet the centrifugal federalism of the friends of the Gironde by the most\nresolute centralisation. France was governed by Paris; and Paris by its\nmunicipality and its mob. Obeying Rousseau's maxim, that the people\ncannot delegate its power, they raised the elementary constituency above\nits representatives. As the greatest constituent body, the most numerous\naccumulation of primary electors, the largest portion of sovereignty,\nwas in the people of Paris, they designed that the people of Paris\nshould rule over France, as the people of Rome, the mob as well as the\nsenate, had ruled, not ingloriously, over Italy, and over half the\nnations that surround the Mediterranean. Although the Jacobins were\nscarcely more irreligious than the Abbe Sieyes or Madame Roland,\nalthough Robespierre wanted to force men to believe in God, although\nDanton went to confession and Barere was a professing Christian, they\nimparted to modern democracy that implacable hatred of religion which\ncontrasts so strangely with the example of its Puritan prototype.\n\nThe deepest cause which made the French Revolution so disastrous to\nliberty was its theory of equality. Liberty was the watchword of the\nmiddle class, equality of the lower. It was the lower class that won the\nbattles of the third estate; that took the Bastille, and made France a\nconstitutional monarchy; that took the Tuileries, and made France a\nRepublic. They claimed their reward. The middle class, having cast down\nthe upper orders with the aid of the lower, instituted a new inequality\nand a privilege for itself. By means of a taxpaying qualification it\ndeprived its confederates of their vote. To those, therefore, who had\naccomplished the Revolution, its promise was not fulfilled. Equality did\nnothing for them. The opinion, at that time, was almost universal, that\nsociety is founded on an agreement which is voluntary and conditional,\nand that the links which bind men to it are terminable, for sufficient\nreason, like those which subject them to authority. From these popular\npremises the logic of Marat drew his sanguinary conclusions. He told\nthe famished people that the conditions on which they had consented to\nbear their evil lot, and had refrained from violence, had not been kept\nto them. It was suicide, it was murder, to submit to starve and to see\none's children starving, by the fault of the rich. The bonds of society\nwere dissolved by the wrong it inflicted. The state of nature had come\nback, in which every man had a right to what he could take. The time had\ncome for the rich to make way for the poor. With this theory of\nequality, liberty was quenched in blood, and Frenchmen became ready to\nsacrifice all other things to save life and fortune.\n\nTwenty years after the splendid opportunity that opened in 1789, the\nreaction had triumphed everywhere in Europe; ancient constitutions had\nperished as well as new; and even England afforded them neither\nprotection nor sympathy. The liberal, at least the democratic revival,\ncame from Spain. The Spaniards fought against the French for a king, who\nwas a prisoner in France. They gave themselves a constitution, and\nplaced his name at the head of it. They had a monarchy, without a king.\nIt required to be so contrived that it would work in the absence,\npossibly the permanent absence, of the monarch. It became, therefore, a\nmonarchy only in name, composed, in fact, of democratic forces. The\nconstitution of 1812 was the attempt of inexperienced men to accomplish\nthe most difficult task in politics. It was smitten with sterility. For\nmany years it was the standard of abortive revolutions among the\nso-called Latin nations. It promulgated the notion of a king who should\nflourish only in name, and should not even discharge the humble function\nwhich Hegel assigns to royalty, of dotting i's for the people.\n\nThe overthrow of the Cadiz constitution, in 1823, was the supreme\ntriumph of the restored monarchy of France. Five years later, under a\nwise and liberal minister, the Restoration was advancing fairly on the\nconstitutional paths, when the incurable distrust of the Liberal party\ndefeated Martignac, and brought in the ministry of extreme royalists\nthat ruined the monarchy. In labouring to transfer power from the class\nwhich the Revolution had enfranchised to those which it had overthrown,\nPolignac and La Bourdonnaie would gladly have made terms with the\nworking men. To break the influence of intellect and capital by means of\nuniversal suffrage, was an idea long and zealously advocated by some of\ntheir supporters. They had not foresight or ability to divide their\nadversaries, and they were vanquished in 1830 by the united democracy.\n\nThe promise of the Revolution of July was to reconcile royalists and\ndemocrats. The King assured Lafayette that he was a republican at heart;\nand Lafayette assured France that Louis Philippe was the best of\nrepublics. The shock of the great event was felt in Poland, and Belgium,\nand even in England. It gave a direct impulse to democratic movements in\nSwitzerland.\n\nSwiss democracy had been in abeyance since 1815. The national will had\nno organ. The cantons were supreme; and governed as inefficiently as\nother governments under the protecting shade of the Holy Alliance. There\nwas no dispute that Switzerland called for extensive reforms, and no\ndoubt of the direction they would take. The number of the cantons was\nthe great obstacle to all improvement. It was useless to have\ntwenty-five governments in a country equal to one American State, and\ninferior in population to one great city. It was impossible that they\nshould be good governments. A central power was the manifest need of the\ncountry. In the absence of an efficient federal power, seven cantons\nformed a separate league for the protection of their own interests.\nWhilst democratic ideas were making way in Switzerland, the Papacy was\ntravelling in the opposite direction, and showing an inflexible\nhostility for ideas which are the breath of democratic life. The growing\ndemocracy and the growing Ultramontanism came into collision. The\nSonderbund could aver with truth that there was no safety for its rights\nunder the Federal Constitution. The others could reply, with equal\ntruth, that there was no safety for the constitution with the\nSonderbund. In 1847, it came to a war between national sovereignty and\ncantonal sovereignty. The Sonderbund was dissolved, and a new Federal\nConstitution was adopted, avowedly and ostensibly charged with the duty\nof carrying out democracy, and repressing the adverse influence of Rome.\nIt was a delusive imitation of the American system. The President was\npowerless. The Senate was powerless. The Supreme Court was powerless.\nThe sovereignty of the cantons was undermined, and their power centred\nin the House of Representatives. The Constitution of 1848 was a first\nstep towards the destruction of Federalism. Another and almost a final\nstep in the direction of centralisation was taken in 1874. The railways,\nand the vast interests they created, made the position of the cantonal\ngovernments untenable. The conflict with the Ultramontanes increased the\ndemand for vigorous action; and the destruction of State Rights in the\nAmerican war strengthened the hands of the Centralists. The Constitution\nof 1874 is one of the most significant works of modern democracy. It is\nthe triumph of democratic force over democratic freedom. It overrules\nnot only the Federal principle, but the representative principle. It\ncarries important measures away from the Federal Legislature to submit\nthem to the votes of the entire people, separating decision from\ndeliberation. The operation is so cumbrous as to be generally\nineffective. But it constitutes a power such as exists, we believe,\nunder the laws of no other country. A Swiss jurist has frankly expressed\nthe spirit of the reigning system by saying, that the State is the\nappointed conscience of the nation.\n\nThe moving force in Switzerland has been democracy relieved of all\nconstraint, the principle of putting in action the greatest force of the\ngreatest number. The prosperity of the country has prevented\ncomplications such as arose in France. The ministers of Louis Philippe,\nable and enlightened men, believed that they would make the people\nprosper if they could have their own way, and could shut out public\nopinion. They acted as if the intelligent middle class was destined by\nheaven to govern. The upper class had proved its unfitness before 1789;\nthe lower class, since 1789. Government by professional men, by\nmanufacturers and scholars, was sure to be safe, and almost sure to be\nreasonable and practical. Money became the object of a political\nsuperstition, such as had formerly attached to land, and afterwards\nattached to labour. The masses of the people, who had fought against\nMarmont, became aware that they had not fought for their own benefit.\nThey were still governed by their employers.\n\nWhen the King parted with Lafayette, and it was found that he would not\nonly reign but govern, the indignation of the republicans found a vent\nin street fighting. In 1836, when the horrors of the infernal machine\nhad armed the crown with ampler powers, and had silenced the republican\nparty, the term Socialism made its appearance in literature.\nTocqueville, who was writing the philosophic chapters that conclude his\nwork, failed to discover the power which the new system was destined to\nexercise on democracy. Until then, democrats and communists had stood\napart. Although the socialist doctrines were defended by the best\nintellects of France, by Thierry, Comte, Chevalier, and Georges Sand,\nthey excited more attention as a literary curiosity than as the cause of\nfuture revolutions. Towards 1840, in the recesses of secret societies,\nrepublicans and socialists coalesced. Whilst the Liberal leaders,\nLamartine and Barrot, discoursed on the surface concerning reform, Ledru\nRollin and Louis Blanc were quietly digging a grave for the monarchy,\nthe Liberal party, and the reign of wealth. They worked so well, and the\nvanquished republicans recovered so thoroughly, by this coalition, the\ninfluence they had lost by a long series of crimes and follies, that, in\n1848, they were able to conquer without fighting. The fruit of their\nvictory was universal suffrage.\n\nFrom that time the promises of socialism have supplied the best energy\nof democracy. Their coalition has been the ruling fact in French\npolitics. It created the \"saviour of society,\" and the Commune; and it\nstill entangles the footsteps of the Republic. It is the only shape in\nwhich democracy has found an entrance into Germany. Liberty has lost its\nspell; and democracy maintains itself by the promise of substantial\ngifts to the masses of the people.\n\nSince the Revolution of July and the Presidency of Jackson gave the\nimpulse which has made democracy preponderate, the ablest political\nwriters, Tocqueville, Calhoun, Mill, and Laboulaye, have drawn, in the\nname of freedom, a formidable indictment against it. They have shown\ndemocracy without respect for the past or care for the future,\nregardless of public faith and of national honour, extravagant and\ninconstant, jealous of talent and of knowledge, indifferent to justice\nbut servile towards opinion, incapable of organisation, impatient of\nauthority, averse from obedience, hostile to religion and to established\nlaw. Evidence indeed abounds, even if the true cause be not proved. But\nit is not to these symptoms that we must impute the permanent danger and\nthe irrepressible conflict. As much might be made good against monarchy,\nand an unsympathising reasoner might in the same way argue that religion\nis intolerant, that conscience makes cowards, that piety rejoices in\nfraud. Recent experience has added little to the observations of those\nwho witnessed the decline after Pericles, of Thucydides, Aristophanes,\nPlato, and of the writer whose brilliant tract against the Athenian\nRepublic is printed among the works of Xenophon. The manifest, the\navowed difficulty is that democracy, no less than monarchy or\naristocracy, sacrifices everything to maintain itself, and strives, with\nan energy and a plausibility that kings and nobles cannot attain, to\noverride representation, to annul all the forces of resistance and\ndeviation, and to secure, by Plebiscite, Referendum, or Caucus, free\nplay for the will of the majority. The true democratic principle, that\nnone shall have power over the people, is taken to mean that none shall\nbe able to restrain or to elude its power. The true democratic\nprinciple, that the people shall not be made to do what it does not\nlike, is taken to mean that it shall never be required to tolerate what\nit does not like. The true democratic principle, that every man's free\nwill shall be as unfettered as possible, is taken to mean that the free\nwill of the collective people shall be fettered in nothing. Religious\ntoleration, judicial independence, dread of centralisation, jealousy of\nState interference, become obstacles to freedom instead of safeguards,\nwhen the centralised force of the State is wielded by the hands of the\npeople. Democracy claims to be not only supreme, without authority\nabove, but absolute, without independence below; to be its own master,\nnot a trustee. The old sovereigns of the world are exchanged for a new\none, who may be flattered and deceived, but whom it is impossible to\ncorrupt or to resist, and to whom must be rendered the things that are\nCaesar's and also the things that are God's. The enemy to be overcome is\nno longer the absolutism of the State, but the liberty of the subject.\nNothing is more significant than the relish with which Ferrari, the most\npowerful democratic writer since Rousseau, enumerates the merits of\ntyrants, and prefers devils to saints in the interest of the community.\n\nFor the old notions of civil liberty and of social order did not benefit\nthe masses of the people. Wealth increased, without relieving their\nwants. The progress of knowledge left them in abject ignorance. Religion\nflourished, but failed to reach them. Society, whose laws were made by\nthe upper class alone, announced that the best thing for the poor is not\nto be born, and the next best, to die in childhood, and suffered them to\nlive in misery and crime and pain. As surely as the long reign of the\nrich has been employed in promoting the accumulation of wealth, the\nadvent of the poor to power will be followed by schemes for diffusing\nit. Seeing how little was done by the wisdom of former times for\neducation and public health, for insurance, association, and savings,\nfor the protection of labour against the law of self-interest, and how\nmuch has been accomplished in this generation, there is reason in the\nfixed belief that a great change was needed, and that democracy has not\nstriven in vain. Liberty, for the mass, is not happiness; and\ninstitutions are not an end but a means. The thing they seek is a force\nsufficient to sweep away scruples and the obstacle of rival interests,\nand, in some degree, to better their condition. They mean that the\nstrong hand that heretofore has formed great States, protected\nreligions, and defended the independence of nations, shall help them by\npreserving life, and endowing it for them with some, at least, of the\nthings men live for. That is the notorious danger of modern democracy.\nThat is also its purpose and its strength. And against this threatening\npower the weapons that struck down other despots do not avail. The\ngreatest happiness principle positively confirms it. The principle of\nequality, besides being as easily applied to property as to power,\nopposes the existence of persons or groups of persons exempt from the\ncommon law, and independent of the common will; and the principle, that\nauthority is a matter of contract, may hold good against kings, but not\nagainst the sovereign people, because a contract implies two parties.\n\nIf we have not done more than the ancients to develop and to examine the\ndisease, we have far surpassed them in studying the remedy. Besides the\nFrench Constitution of the year III., and that of the American\nConfederates,--the most remarkable attempts that have been made since\nthe archonship of Euclides to meet democratic evils with the antidotes\nwhich democracy itself supplies,--our age has been prolific in this\nbranch of experimental politics.\n\nMany expedients have been tried, that have been evaded or defeated. A\ndivided executive, which was an important phase in the transformation of\nancient monarchies into republics, and which, through the advocacy of\nCondorcet, took root in France, has proved to be weakness itself.\n\nThe constitution of 1795, the work of a learned priest, confined the\nfranchise to those who should know how to read and write; and in 1849\nthis provision was rejected by men who intended that the ignorant voter\nshould help them to overturn the Republic. In our time no democracy\ncould long subsist without educating the masses; and the scheme of\nDaunou is simply an indirect encouragement to elementary instruction.\n\nIn 1799 Sieyes suggested to Bonaparte the idea of a great Council, whose\nfunction it should be to keep the acts of the Legislature in harmony\nwith the constitution--a function which the _Nomophylakes_ discharged at\nAthens, and the Supreme Court in the United States, and which produced\nthe Senat Conservateur, one of the favourite implements of Imperialism.\nSieyes meant that his Council should also serve the purpose of a gilded\nostracism, having power to absorb any obnoxious politician, and to\nsilence him with a thousand a year.\n\nNapoleon the Third's plan of depriving unmarried men of their votes\nwould have disfranchised the two greatest Conservative classes in\nFrance, the priest and the soldier.\n\nIn the American constitution it was intended that the chief of the\nexecutive should be chosen by a body of carefully selected electors. But\nsince, in 1825, the popular candidate succumbed to one who had only a\nminority of votes, it has become the practice to elect the President by\nthe pledged delegates of universal suffrage.\n\nThe exclusion of ministers from Congress has been one of the severest\nstrains on the American system; and the law which required a majority of\nthree to one enabled Louis Napoleon to make himself Emperor. Large\nconstituencies make independent deputies; but experience proves that\nsmall assemblies, the consequence of large constituencies, can be\nmanaged by Government.\n\nThe composite vote and the cumulative vote have been almost universally\nrejected as schemes for baffling the majority. But the principle of\ndividing the representatives equally between population and property has\nnever had fair play. It was introduced by Thouret into the constitution\nof 1791. The Revolution made it inoperative; and it was so manipulated\nfrom 1817 to 1848 by the fatal dexterity of Guizot as to make opinion\nripe for universal suffrage.\n\nConstitutions which forbid the payment of deputies and the system of\nimperative instructions, which deny the power of dissolution, and make\nthe Legislature last for a fixed term, or renew it by partial\nre-elections, and which require an interval between the several debates\non the same measure, evidently strengthen the independence of the\nrepresentative assembly. The Swiss veto has the same effect, as it\nsuspends legislation only when opposed by a majority of the whole\nelectoral body, not by a majority of those who actually vote upon it.\n\nIndirect elections are scarcely anywhere in use out of Germany, but they\nhave been a favourite corrective of democracy with many thoughtful\npoliticians. Where the extent of the electoral district obliges\nconstituents to vote for candidates who are unknown to them, the\nelection is not free. It is managed by wire-pullers, and by party\nmachinery, beyond the control of the electors. Indirect election puts\nthe choice of the managers into their hands. The objection is that the\nintermediate electors are generally too few to span the interval between\nvoters and candidates, and that they choose representatives not of\nbetter quality, but of different politics. If the intermediate body\nconsisted of one in ten of the whole constituency, the contact would be\npreserved, the people would be really represented, and the ticket system\nwould be broken down.\n\nThe one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or\nrather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force\nor fraud, in carrying elections. To break off that point is to avert the\ndanger. The common system of representation perpetuates the danger.\nUnequal electorates afford no security to majorities. Equal electorates\ngive none to minorities. Thirty-five years ago it was pointed out that\nthe remedy is proportional representation. It is profoundly democratic,\nfor it increases the influence of thousands who would otherwise have no\nvoice in the government; and it brings men more near an equality by so\ncontriving that no vote shall be wasted, and that every voter shall\ncontribute to bring into Parliament a member of his own opinions. The\norigin of the idea is variously claimed for Lord Grey and for\nConsiderant. The successful example of Denmark and the earnest advocacy\nof Mill gave it prominence in the world of politics. It has gained\npopularity with the growth of democracy, and we are informed by M.\nNaville that in Switzerland Conservatives and Radicals combined to\npromote it.\n\nOf all checks on democracy, federalism has been the most efficacious and\nthe most congenial; but, becoming associated with the Red Republic, with\nfeudalism, with the Jesuits, and with slavery, it has fallen into\ndisrepute, and is giving way to centralism. The federal system limits\nand restrains the sovereign power by dividing it, and by assigning to\nGovernment only certain defined rights. It is the only method of curbing\nnot only the majority but the power of the whole people, and it affords\nthe strongest basis for a second chamber, which has been found the\nessential security for freedom in every genuine democracy.\n\nThe fall of Guizot discredited the famous maxim of the Doctrinaires,\nthat Reason is sovereign, and not king or people; and it was further\nexposed to the scoffer by the promise of Comte that Positivist\nphilosophers shall manufacture political ideas, which no man shall be\npermitted to dispute. But putting aside international and criminal law,\nin which there is some approach to uniformity, the domain of political\neconomy seems destined to admit the rigorous certainty of science.\nWhenever that shall be attained, when the battle between Economists and\nSocialists is ended, the evil force which Socialism imparts to democracy\nwill be spent. The battle is raging more violently than ever, but it has\nentered into a new phase, by the rise of a middle party. Whether that\nremarkable movement, which is promoted by some of the first economists\nin Europe, is destined to shake the authority of their science, or to\nconquer socialism, by robbing it of that which is the secret of its\nstrength, it must be recorded here as the latest and the most serious\neffort that has been made to disprove the weighty sentence of Rousseau,\nthat democracy is a government for gods, but unfit for man.\n\nWe have been able to touch on only a few of the topics that crowd Sir\nErskine May's volumes. Although he has perceived more clearly than\nTocqueville the contact of democracy with socialism, his judgment is\nuntinged with Tocqueville's despondency, and he contemplates the\ndirection of progress with a confidence that approaches optimism. The\nnotion of an inflexible logic in history does not depress him, for he\nconcerns himself with facts and with men more than with doctrines, and\nhis book is a history of several democracies, not of democracy. There\nare links in the argument, there are phases of development which he\nleaves unnoticed, because his object has not been to trace out the\nproperties and the connection of ideas, but to explain the results of\nexperience. We should consult his pages, probably, without effect, if we\nwished to follow the origin and sequence of the democratic dogmas, that\nall men are equal; that speech and thought are free; that each\ngeneration is a law to itself only; that there shall be no endowments,\nno entails, no primogeniture; that the people are sovereign; that the\npeople can do no wrong. The great mass of those who, of necessity, are\ninterested in practical politics have no such antiquarian curiosity.\nThey want to know what can be learned from the countries where the\ndemocratic experiments have been tried; but they do not care to be told\nhow M. Waddington has emended the _Monumentum Ancyranum_, what\nconnection there was between Mariana and Milton, or between Penn and\nRousseau, or who invented the proverb _Vox Populi Vox Dei_. Sir Erskine\nMay's reluctance to deal with matters speculative and doctrinal, and to\ndevote his space to the mere literary history of politics, has made his\ntouch somewhat uncertain in treating of the political action of\nChristianity, perhaps the most complex and comprehensive question that\ncan embarrass a historian. He disparages the influence of the mediaeval\nChurch on nations just emerging from a barbarous paganism, and he exalts\nit when it had become associated with despotism and persecution. He\ninsists on the liberating action of the Reformation in the sixteenth\ncentury, when it gave a stimulus to absolutism; and he is slow to\nrecognise, in the enthusiasm and violence of the sects in the\nseventeenth, the most potent agency ever brought to bear on democratic\nhistory. The omission of America creates a void between 1660 and 1789,\nand leaves much unexplained in the revolutionary movement of the last\nhundred years, which is the central problem of the book. But if some\nthings are missed from the design, if the execution is not equal in\nevery part, the praise remains to Sir Erskine May, that he is the only\nwriter who has ever brought together the materials for a comparative\nstudy of democracy, that he has avoided the temper of party, that he has\nshown a hearty sympathy for the progress and improvement of mankind, and\na steadfast faith in the wisdom and the power that guide it.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 5: _The Quarterly Review_, January 1878.]\n\n\n\n\nIV\n\nTHE MASSACRE OF ST. BARTHOLOMEW[6]\n\n\nThe way in which Coligny and his adherents met their death has been\nhanded down by a crowd of trustworthy witnesses, and few things in\nhistory are known in more exact detail. But the origin and motives of\nthe tragedy, and the manner of its reception by the opinion of Christian\nEurope, are still subject to controversy. Some of the evidence has been\ndifficult of access, part is lost, and much has been deliberately\ndestroyed. No letters written from Paris at the time have been found in\nthe Austrian archives. In the correspondence of thirteen agents of the\nHouse of Este at the Court of Rome, every paper relating to the event\nhas disappeared. All the documents of 1572, both from Rome and Paris,\nare wanting in the archives of Venice. In the Registers of many French\ntowns the leaves which contained the records of August and September in\nthat year have been torn out. The first reports sent to England by\nWalsingham and by the French Government have not been recovered. Three\naccounts printed at Rome, when the facts were new, speedily became so\nrare that they have been forgotten. The Bull of Gregory XIII. was not\nadmitted into the official collections; and the reply to Muretus has\nescaped notice until now. The letters of Charles IX. to Rome, with the\nimportant exception of that which he wrote on the 24th _of_ August, have\nbeen dispersed and lost The letters of Gregory XIII. to France have\nnever been seen by persons willing to make them public. In the absence\nof these documents the most authentic information is that which is\nsupplied by the French Ambassador and by the Nuncio. The despatches of\nFerralz, describing the attitude of the Roman court, are extant, but\nhave not been used. Those of Salviati have long been known.\nChateaubriand took a copy when the papal archives were at Paris, and\nprojected a work on the events with which they are concerned. Some\nextracts were published, with his consent, by the continuator of\nMackintosh; and a larger selection, from the originals in the Vatican,\nappeared in Theiner's _Annals of Gregory XIII_. The letters written\nunder Pius V. are beyond the limits of that work; and Theiner, moreover,\nhas omitted whatever seemed irrelevant to his purpose. The criterion of\nrelevancy is uncertain; and we shall avail ourselves largely of the\nunpublished portions of Salviati's correspondence, which were\ntranscribed by Chateaubriand. These manuscripts, with others of equal\nimportance not previously consulted, determine several doubtful\nquestions of policy and design.\n\nThe Protestants never occupied a more triumphant position, and their\nprospects were never brighter, than in the summer of 1572. For many\nyears the progress of their religion had been incessant. The most\nvaluable of the conquests it has retained were already made; and the\nperiod of its reverses had not begun. The great division which aided\nCatholicism afterwards to recover so much lost ground was not openly\nconfessed; and the effectual unity of the Reformed Churches was not yet\ndissolved. In controversial theology the defence was weaker than the\nattack. The works to which the Reformation owed its popularity and\nsystem were in the hands of thousands, while the best authors of the\nCatholic restoration had not begun to write. The press continued to\nserve the new opinions better than the old; and in literature\nProtestantism was supreme. Persecuted in the South, and established by\nviolence in the North, it had overcome the resistance of princes in\nCentral Europe, and had won toleration without ceasing to be intolerant.\nIn France and Poland, in the dominions of the Emperor and under the\nGerman prelates, the attempt to arrest its advance by physical force had\nbeen abandoned. In Germany it covered twice the area that remained to it\nin the next generation, and, except in Bavaria, Catholicism was fast\ndying out. The Polish Government had not strength to persecute, and\nPoland became the refuge of the sects. When the bishops found that they\ncould not prevent toleration, they resolved that they would not restrict\nit. Trusting to the maxim, \"Bellum Haereticorum pax est Ecclesiae,\" they\ninsisted that liberty should extend to those whom the Reformers would\nhave exterminated.[7] The Polish Protestants, in spite of their\ndissensions, formed themselves into one great party. When the death of\nthe last of the Jagellons, on the 7th of July 1572, made the monarchy\nelective, they were strong enough to enforce their conditions on the\ncandidates; and it was thought that they would be able to decide the\nelection, and obtain a king of their own choosing. Alva's reign of\nTerror had failed to pacify the Low Countries, and he was about to\nresign the hopeless task to an incapable successor. The taking of the\nBrill in April was the first of those maritime victories which led to\nthe independence of the Dutch. Mons fell in May; and in July the\nimportant province of Holland declared for the Prince of Orange. The\nCatholics believed that all was lost if Alva remained in command.[8]\n\nThe decisive struggle was in France. During the minority of Charles IX.\npersecution had given way to civil war, and the Regent, his mother, had\nvainly striven, by submitting to neither party, to uphold the authority\nof the Crown. She checked the victorious Catholics, by granting to the\nHuguenots terms which constituted them, in spite of continual disaster\nin the field, a vast and organised power in the State. To escape their\ninfluence it would have been necessary to invoke the help of Philip\nII., and to accept protection which would have made France subordinate\nto Spain. Philip laboured to establish such an alliance; and it was to\npromote this scheme that he sent his queen, Elizabeth of Valois, to meet\nher mother at Bayonne. In 1568 Elizabeth died; and a rumour came to\nCatherine touching the manner of her death which made it hard to listen\nto friendly overtures from her husband. Antonio Perez, at that time an\nunscrupulous instrument of his master's will, afterwards accused him of\nhaving poisoned his wife. \"On parle fort sinistrement de sa mort, pour\navoir ete advancee,\" says Brantome. After the massacre of the\nProtestants, the ambassador at Venice, a man distinguished as a jurist\nand a statesman, reproached Catherine with having thrown France into the\nhands of him in whom the world recognised her daughter's murderer.\nCatherine did not deny the truth of the report. She replied that she was\n\"bound to think of her sons in preference to her daughters, that the\nfoul-play was not fully proved, and that if it were it could not be\navenged so long as France was weakened by religious discord.\"[9] She\nwrote as she could not have written if she had been convinced that the\nsuspicion was unjust.\n\nWhen Charles IX. began to be his own master he seemed resolved to follow\nhis father and grandfather in their hostility to the Spanish Power. He\nwrote to a trusted servant that all his thoughts were bent on thwarting\nPhilip.[10] While the Christian navies were fighting at Lepanto, the\nKing of France was treating with the Turks. His menacing attitude in the\nfollowing year kept Don Juan in Sicilian waters, and made his victory\nbarren for Christendom. Encouraged by French protection, Venice withdrew\nfrom the League. Even in Corsica there was a movement which men\ninterpreted as a prelude to the storm that France was raising against\nthe empire of Spain. Rome trembled in expectation of a Huguenot invasion\nof Italy; for Charles was active in conciliating the Protestants both\nabroad and at home. He married a daughter of the tolerant Emperor\nMaximilian II.; and he carried on negotiations for the marriage of his\nbrother with Queen Elizabeth, not with any hope of success, but in order\nto impress public opinion.[11] He made treaties of alliance, in quick\nsuccession, with England, with the German Protestants, and with the\nPrince of Orange. He determined that his brother Anjou, the champion of\nthe Catholics, of whom it was said that he had vowed to root out the\nProtestants to a man,[12] should be banished to the throne of Poland.\nDisregarding the threats and entreaties of the Pope, he gave his sister\nin marriage to Navarre. By the peace of St. Germains the Huguenots had\nsecured, within certain limits, freedom from persecution and the liberty\nof persecuting; so that Pius V. declared that France had been made the\nslave of heretics. Coligny was now the most powerful man in the kingdom.\nHis scheme for closing the civil wars by an expedition for the conquest\nof the Netherlands began to be put in motion. French auxiliaries\nfollowed Lewis of Nassau into Mons; an army of Huguenots had already\ngone to his assistance; another was being collected near the frontier,\nand Coligny was preparing to take the command in a war which might\nbecome a Protestant crusade, and which left the Catholics no hope of\nvictory. Meanwhile many hundreds of his officers followed him to Paris,\nto attend the wedding which was to reconcile the factions, and cement\nthe peace of religion.\n\nIn the midst of those lofty designs and hopes, Coligny was struck down.\nOn the morning of the 22nd of August he was shot at and badly wounded.\nTwo days later he was killed; and a general attack was made on the\nHuguenots of Paris. It lasted some weeks, and was imitated in about\ntwenty places. The chief provincial towns of France were among them.\n\nJudged by its immediate result, the massacre of St. Bartholomew was a\nmeasure weakly planned and irresolutely executed, which deprived\nProtestantism of its political leaders, and left it for a time to the\ncontrol of zealots. There is no evidence to make it probable that more\nthan seven thousand victims perished. Judged by later events, it was the\nbeginning of a vast change in the conflict of the churches. At first it\nwas believed that a hundred thousand Huguenots had fallen. It was said\nthat the survivors were abjuring by thousands,[13] that the children of\nthe slain were made Catholics, that those whom the priest had admitted\nto absolution and communion were nevertheless put to death.[14] Men who\nwere far beyond the reach of the French Government lost their faith in a\nreligion which Providence had visited with so tremendous a judgment;[15]\nand foreign princes took heart to employ severities which could excite\nno horror after the scenes in France.\n\nContemporaries were persuaded that the Huguenots had been flattered and\ntheir policy adopted only for their destruction, and that the murder of\nColigny and his followers was a long premeditated crime. Catholics and\nProtestants vied with each other in detecting proofs of that which they\nvariously esteemed a sign of supernatural inspiration or of diabolical\ndepravity. In the last forty years a different opinion has prevailed. It\nhas been deemed more probable, more consistent with testimony and with\nthe position of affairs at the time, that Coligny succeeded in acquiring\nextraordinary influence over the mind of Charles, that his advice really\npredominated, and that the sanguinary resolution was suddenly embraced\nby his adversaries as the last means of regaining power. This opinion is\nmade plausible by many facts. It is supported by several writers who\nwere then living, and by the document known as the Confession of Anjou.\nThe best authorities of the present day are nearly unanimous in\nrejecting premeditation.\n\nThe evidence on the opposite side is stronger than they suppose. The\ndoom which awaited the Huguenots had been long expected and often\nforetold. People at a distance, Monluc in Languedoc, and the Protestant\nMylius in Italy, drew the same inference from the news that came from\nthe court. Strangers meeting on the road discussed the infatuation of\nthe Admiral.[16] Letters brought from Rome to the Emperor the\nsignificant intimation that the birds were all caged, and now was the\ntime to lay hands on them.[17] Duplessis-Mornay, the future chief of the\nHuguenots, was so much oppressed with a sense of coming evil, that he\nhardly ventured into the streets on the wedding-day. He warned the\nAdmiral of the general belief among their friends that the marriage\nconcealed a plot for their ruin, and that the festivities would end in\nsome horrible surprise.[18] Coligny was proof against suspicion. Several\nof his followers left Paris, but he remained unmoved. At one moment the\nexcessive readiness to grant all his requests shook the confidence of\nhis son-in-law Teligny; but the doubt vanished so completely that\nTeligny himself prevented the flight of his partisans after the attempt\non the Admiral's life. On the morning of the fatal day, Montgomery sent\nword to Walsingham that Coligny was safe under protection of the King's\nGuards, and that no further stir was to be apprehended.[19]\n\nFor many years foreign advisers had urged Catherine to make away with\nthese men. At first it was computed that half a dozen victims would be\nenough.[20] That was the original estimate of Alva, at Bayonne.[21] When\nthe Duke of Ferrara was in France, in 1564, he proposed a larger\nmeasure, and he repeated this advice by the mouth of every agent whom he\nsent to France.[22] After the event, both Alva and Alfonso reminded\nCatherine that she had done no more than follow their advice.[23] Alva's\nletter explicitly confirms the popular notion which connects the\nmassacre with the conference of Bayonne; and it can no longer now be\ndoubted that La Roche-sur-Yon, on his deathbed, informed Coligny that\nmurderous resolutions had been taken on that occasion.[24] But the\nNuncio, Santa Croce, who was present, wrote to Cardinal Borromeo that\nthe Queen had indeed promised to punish the infraction of the Edict of\nPacification, but that this was a very different thing from undertaking\nto extirpate heresy. Catherine affirmed that in this way the law could\nreach all the Huguenot ministers; and Alva professed to believe her.[25]\nWhatever studied ambiguity of language she may have used, the action of\n1572 was uninfluenced by deliberations which were seven years old.\n\nDuring the spring and summer the Tuscan agents diligently prepared their\nmaster for what was to come. Petrucci wrote on the 19th of March that,\nfor a reason which he could not trust to paper, the marriage would\ncertainly take place, though not until the Huguenots had delivered up\ntheir strongholds. Four weeks later Alamanni announced that the Queen's\npious design for restoring unity of faith would, by the grace of God, be\nspeedily accomplished. On the 9th of August Petrucci was able to report\nthat the plan arranged at Bayonne was near execution.[26] Yet he was not\nfully initiated. The Queen afterwards assured him that she had confided\nthe secret to no foreign resident except the Nuncio,[27] and Petrucci\nresentfully complains that she had also consulted the Ambassador of\nSavoy. Venice, like Florence and Savoy, was not taken by surprise. In\nFebruary the ambassador Contarini explained to the Senate the specious\ntranquillity in France, by saying that the Government reckoned on the\ndeath of the Admiral or the Queen of Navarre to work a momentous\nchange.[28] Cavalli, his successor, judged that a business so grossly\nmismanaged showed no signs of deliberation.[29] There was another\nVenetian at Paris who was better informed. The Republic was seeking to\nwithdraw from the league against the Turks; and her most illustrious\nstatesman, Giovanni Michiel, was sent to solicit the help of France in\nnegotiating peace.[30] The account which he gave of his mission has been\npronounced by a consummate judge of Venetian State-Papers the most\nvaluable report of the sixteenth century.[31] He was admitted almost\ndaily to secret conference with Anjou, Nevers, and the group of Italians\non whom the chief odium rests; and there was no counsellor to whom\nCatherine more willingly gave ear.[32] Michiel affirms that the\nintention had been long entertained, and that the Nuncio had been\ndirected to reveal it privately to Pius V.[33]\n\nSalviati was related to Catherine, and had gained her good opinion as\nNuncio in the year 1570. The Pope had sent him back because nobody\nseemed more capable of diverting her and her son from the policy which\ncaused so much uneasiness at Rome.[34] He died many years later, with\nthe reputation of having been one of the most eminent Cardinals at a\ntime when the Sacred College was unusually rich in talent. Personally,\nhe had always favoured stern measures of repression. When the Countess\nof Entremont was married to Coligny, Salviati declared that she had made\nherself liable to severe penalties by entertaining proposals of marriage\nwith so notorious a heretic, and demanded that the Duke of Savoy should,\nby all the means in his power, cause that wicked bride to be put out of\nthe way.[35] When the peace of St. Germains was concluded, he assured\nCharles and Catherine that their lives were in danger, as the Huguenots\nwere seeking to pull down the throne as well as the altar. He believed\nthat all intercourse with them was sinful, and that the sole remedy was\nutter extermination by the sword. \"I am convinced,\" he wrote, \"that it\nwill come to this.\" \"If they do the tenth part of what I have advised,\nit will be well for them.\"[36] After an audience of two hours, at which\nhe had presented a letter from Pius V., prophesying the wrath of Heaven,\nSalviati perceived that his exhortations made some impression. The King\nand Queen whispered to him that they hoped to make the peace yield such\nfruit that the end would more than countervail the badness of the\nbeginning; and the King added, in strict confidence, that his plan was\none which, once told, could never be executed.[37] This might have been\nsaid to delude the Nuncio; but he was inclined on the whole to believe\nthat it was sincerely meant. The impression was confirmed by the\nArchbishop of Sens, Cardinal Pelleve, who informed him that the Huguenot\nleaders were caressed at Court in order to detach them from their party,\nand that after the loss of their leaders it would not take more than\nthree days to deal with the rest.[38] Salviati on his return to France\nwas made aware that his long-deferred hopes were about to be fulfilled.\nHe shadowed it forth obscurely in his despatches. He reported that the\nQueen allowed the Huguenots to pass into Flanders, believing that the\nadmiral would become more and more presumptuous until he gave her an\nopportunity of retribution; for she excelled in that kind of intrigue.\nSome days later he knew more, and wrote that he hoped soon to have good\nnews for his Holiness.[39] At the last moment his heart misgave him. On\nthe morning of the 21st of August the Duke of Montpensier and the\nCardinal of Bourbon spoke with so much unconcern, in his presence, of\nwhat was then so near, that he thought it hardly possible the secret\ncould be kept.[40]\n\nThe foremost of the French prelates was the Cardinal of Lorraine. He had\nheld a prominent position at the council of Trent; and for many years he\nhad wielded the influence of the House of Guise over the Catholics of\nFrance. In May 1572 he went to Rome; and he was still there when the\nnews came from Paris in September. He at once made it known that the\nresolution had been taken before he left France, and that it was due to\nhimself and his nephew, the Duke of Guise.[41] As the spokesman of the\nGallican Church in the following year he delivered a harangue to Charles\nIX., in which he declared that Charles had eclipsed the glory of\npreceding kings by slaying the false prophets, and especially by the\nholy deceit and pious dissimulation with which he had laid his\nplans.[42]\n\nThere was one man who did not get his knowledge from rumour, and who\ncould not be deceived by lies. The King's confessor, Sorbin, afterwards\nBishop of Nevers, published in 1574 a narrative of the life and death of\nCharles IX. He bears unequivocal testimony that that clement and\nmagnanimous act, for so he terms it, was resolved upon beforehand, and\nhe praises the secrecy as well as the justice of his hero.[43]\n\nEarly in the year a mission of extraordinary solemnity had appeared in\nFrance. Pius V., who was seriously alarmed at the conduct of Charles,\nhad sent the Cardinal of Alessandria as Legate to the Kings of Spain and\nPortugal, and directed him, in returning, to visit the Court at Blois.\nThe Legate was nephew to the Pope, and the man whom he most entirely\ntrusted.[44] His character stood so high that the reproach of nepotism\nwas never raised by his promotion. Several prelates destined to future\neminence attended him. His chief adviser was Hippolyto Aldobrandini,\nwho, twenty years later, ascended the papal chair as Clement VIII. The\ncompanion whose presence conferred the greatest lustre on the mission\nwas the general of the Jesuits, Francis Borgia, the holiest of the\nsuccessors of Ignatius, and the most venerated of men then living.\nAusterities had brought him to the last stage of weakness; and he was\nsinking under the malady of which he was soon to die. But it was\nbelieved that the words of such a man, pleading for the Church, would\nsway the mind of the King. The ostensible purpose of the Legate's\njourney was to break off the match with Navarre, and to bring France\ninto the Holy League. He gained neither object. When he was summoned\nback to Rome it was understood in France that he had reaped nothing but\nrefusals, and that he went away disappointed.[45] The jeers of the\nProtestants pursued him.[46] But it was sufficiently certain beforehand\nthat France could not plunge into a Turkish war.[47] The real business\nof the Legate, besides proposing a Catholic husband for the Princess,\nwas to ascertain the object of the expedition which was fitting out in\nthe Western ports. On both points he had something favourable to report.\nIn his last despatch, dated Lyons, the 6th of March, he wrote that he\nhad failed to prevent the engagement with Navarre, but that he had\nsomething for the Pope's private ear, which made his journey not\naltogether unprofitable.[48] The secret was soon divulged in Italy. The\nKing had met the earnest remonstrances of the Legate by assuring him\nthat the marriage afforded the only prospect of wreaking vengeance on\nthe Huguenots: the event would show; he could say no more, but desired\nhis promise to be carried to the Pope. It was added that he had\npresented a ring to the Legate, as a pledge of sincerity, which the\nLegate refused. The first to publish this story was Capilupi, writing\nonly seven months later. It was repeated by Folieta,[49] and is given\nwith all details by the historians of Pius V.--Catena and Gabuzzi.\nCatena was secretary to the Cardinal of Alessandria as early as July\n1572, and submitted his work to him before publication.[50] Gabuzzi\nwrote at the instance of the same Cardinal, who supplied him with\nmaterials; and his book was examined and approved by Borghese,\nafterwards Paul V. Both the Cardinal of Alessandria and Paul V.,\ntherefore, were instrumental in causing it to be proclaimed that the\nLegate was acquainted in February 1572 with the intention which the King\ncarried out in August.\n\nThe testimony of Aldobrandini was given still more distinctly, and with\ngreater definiteness and authority. When he was required, as Pope, to\npronounce upon the dissolution of the ill-omened marriage, he related to\nBorghese and other Cardinals what had passed in that interview between\nthe Legate and the King, adding that, when the report of the massacre\nreached Rome, the Cardinal exclaimed: \"God be praised! the King of\nFrance has kept his word.\" Clement referred D'Ossat to a narrative of\nthe journey which he had written himself, and in which those things\nwould be found.[51] The clue thus given has been unaccountably\nneglected, although the Report was known to exist. One copy is mentioned\nby Giorgi; and Mazzuchelli knew of another. Neither of them had read it;\nfor they both ascribe it to Michele Bonelli, the Cardinal of\nAlessandria. The first page would have satisfied them that it was not\nhis work. Clement VIII. describes the result of the mission to Blois in\nthese words: \"Quae rationes eo impulerunt regem ut semel apprehensa manu\nCardinalis in hanc vocem proruperit: Significate Pontifici illumque\ncertum reddite me totum hoc quod circa id matrimonium feci et facturus\nsum, nulla alia de causa facere, quam ulciscendi inimicos Dei et hujus\nregni, et puniendi tam infidos rebelles, ut eventus ipse docebit, nec\naliud vobis amplius significare possum. Quo non obstante semper\nCardinalis eas subtexuit difficultates quas potuit, objiciens regi\npossetne contrahi matrimonium a fidele cum infidele, sitve dispensatio\nnecessaria; quod si est nunquam Pontificem inductum iri ut illam\nconcedat. Re ipsa ita in suspenso relicta discedendum esse putavit, cum\njam rescivisset qua de causa naves parabantur, qui apparatus contra\nRocellam tendebant.\"\n\nThe opinion that the massacre of St. Bartholomew was a sudden and\nunpremeditated act cannot be maintained; but it does not follow that the\nonly alternative is to believe that it was the aim of every measure of\nthe Government for two years before. Catherine had long contemplated it\nas her last expedient in extremity; but she had decided that she could\nnot resort to it while her son was virtually a minor.[52] She suggested\nthe idea to him in 1570. In that year he gave orders that the Huguenots\nshould be slaughtered at Bourges. The letter is preserved in which La\nChastre spurned the command: \"If the people of Bourges learn that your\nMajesty takes pleasure in such tragedies, they will repeat them often.\nIf these men must die, let them first be tried; but do not reward my\nservices and sully my reputation by such a stain.\"[53]\n\nIn the autumn of 1571 Coligny came to Blois. Walsingham suspected, and\nwas afterwards convinced that the intention to kill him already existed.\nThe Pope was much displeased by his presence at Court; but he received\nassurances from the ambassador which satisfied him. It was said at the\ntime that he at first believed that Coligny was to be murdered, but that\nhe soon found that there was no such praiseworthy design.[54]\n\nIn December the King knew that, when the moment came, the burghers of\nParis would not fail him. Marcel, the Prevot des Marchands, told him\nthat the wealth was driven out of the country by the Huguenots: \"The\nCatholics will bear it no longer.... Let your Majesty look to it. Your\ncrown is at stake, Paris alone can save it.\"[55] By the month of\nFebruary 1572 the plan had assumed a practical shape. The political idea\nbefore the mind of Charles was the same by which Richelieu afterwards\nmade France the first Power in the world; to repress the Protestants at\nhome, and to encourage them abroad. No means of effectual repression was\nleft but murder. But the idea of raising up enemies to Spain by means of\nProtestantism was thoroughly understood. The Huguenots were allowed to\nmake an expedition to aid William of Orange. Had they gained some\nsubstantial success, the Government would have followed it up, and the\nscheme of Coligny would have become for the moment the policy of France.\nBut the Huguenot commander Genlis was defeated and taken. Coligny had\nhad his chance. He had played and lost. It was useless now to propose\nhis great venture against the King of Spain.[56]\n\nPhilip II. perfectly understood that this event was decisive. When the\nnews came from Hainaut, he sent to the Nuncio Castagna to say that the\nKing of France would gain more than himself by the loss of so many brave\nProtestants, and that the time was come for him, with the aid of the\npeople of Paris, to get rid of Coligny and the rest of his enemies.[57]\nIt appears from the letters of Salviati that he also regarded the\nresolution as having been finally taken after the defeat of Genlis.\n\nThe Court had determined to enforce unity of faith in France. An edict\nof toleration was issued for the purpose of lulling the Huguenots; but\nit was well known that it was only a pretence.[58] Strict injunctions\nwere sent into the provinces that it should not be obeyed;[59] and\nCatherine said openly to the English envoy, \"My son will have exercise\nbut of one Religion in his Realm.\" On the 26th the King explained his\nplan to Mondoucet, his agent at Brussels: \"Since it has pleased God to\nbring matters to the point they have now reached, I mean to use the\nopportunity to secure a perpetual repose in my kingdom, and to do\nsomething for the good of all Christendom. It is probable that the\nconflagration will spread to every town in France, and that they will\nfollow the example of Paris, and lay hands on all the Protestants.... I\nhave written to the governors to assemble forces in order to cut to\npieces those who may resist.\"[60] The great object was to accomplish the\nextirpation of Protestantism in such a way as might leave intact the\nfriendship with Protestant States. Every step was governed by this\nconsideration; and the difficulty of the task caused the inconsistencies\nand the vacillation that ensued. By assassinating Coligny alone it was\nexpected that such an agitation would be provoked among his partisans\nas would make it appear that they were killed by the Catholics in\nself-defence. Reports were circulated at once with that object. A letter\nwritten on the 23rd states that, after the Admiral was wounded on the\nday before, the Huguenots assembled at the gate of the Louvre, to avenge\nhim on the Guises as they came out.[61] And the first explanation sent\nforth by the Government on the 24th was to the effect that the old feud\nbetween the Houses of Guise and of Chatillon had broken out with a fury\nwhich it was impossible to quell. This fable lasted only for a single\nday. On the 25th Charles writes that he has begun to discover traces of\na Huguenot conspiracy;[62] and on the following day this was publicly\nsubstituted for the original story. Neither the vendetta of the Guises\nnor the conspiracy at Paris could be made to explain the massacre in the\nprovinces. It required to be so managed that the King could disown it;\nSalviati describes the plan of operations. It was intended that the\nHuguenots should be slaughtered successively by a series of spontaneous\noutbreaks in different parts of the country. While Rochelle held out, it\nwas dangerous to proceed with a more sweeping method.[63] Accordingly,\nno written instructions from the King are in existence; and the\ngovernors were expressly informed that they were to expect none.[64]\nMessengers went into the provinces with letters requiring that the\nverbal orders which they brought should be obeyed.[65] Many governors\nrefused to act upon directions so vague and so hard to verify. Burgundy\nwas preserved in this way. Two gentlemen arrived with letters of\nrecommendation from the King, and declared his commands. They were\nasked to put them on paper; but they refused to give in writing what\nthey had received by word of mouth. Mandelot, the Governor of Lyons, the\nmost ignoble of the instruments in this foul deed, complained that the\nintimation of the royal wishes sent to him was obscure and\ninsufficient.[66] He did not do his work thoroughly, and incurred the\ndispleasure of the King. The orders were complicated as well as obscure.\nThe public authorities were required to collect the Huguenots in some\nprison or other safe place, where they could be got at by hired bands of\nvolunteer assassins. To screen the King it was desirable that his\nofficers should not superintend the work themselves. Mandelot, having\nlocked the gates of Lyons, and shut up the Huguenots together, took\nhimself out of the way while they were being butchered. Carouge, at\nRouen, received a commission to visit the other towns in his province.\nThe magistrates implored him to remain, as nobody, in his absence, could\nrestrain the people. When the King had twice repeated his commands,\nCarouge obeyed; and five hundred Huguenots perished.[67]\n\nIt was thought unsafe even for the King's brother to give distinct\norders under his own hand. He wrote to his lieutenant in Anjou that he\nhad commissioned Puygaillard to communicate with him on a matter which\nconcerned the King's service and his own, and desired that his orders\nshould be received as if they came directly from himself. They were,\nthat every Huguenot in Angers, Saumur, and the adjoining country should\nbe put to death without delay and without exception.[68] The Duke of\nMontpensier himself sent the same order to Brittany; but it was\nindignantly rejected by the municipality of Nantes.\n\nWhen reports came in of the manner in which the event had been received\nin foreign countries, the Government began to waver, and the sanguinary\norders were recalled. Schomberg wrote from Germany that the Protestant\nallies were lost unless they could be satisfied that the King had not\ndecreed the extermination of their brethren.[69] He was instructed to\nexplain the tumult in the provinces by the animosity bequeathed by the\nwars of religion.[70] The Bishop of Valence was intriguing in Poland on\nbehalf of Anjou. He wrote that his success had been made very doubtful,\nand that, if further cruelties were perpetrated, ten millions of gold\npieces would not bribe the venal Poles. He advised that a counterfeit\nedict, at least, should be published.[71] Charles perceived that he\nwould be compelled to abandon his enterprise, and set about appeasing\nthe resentment of the Protestant Powers. He promised that an inquiry\nshould be instituted, and the proofs of the conspiracy communicated to\nforeign Governments. To give a judicial aspect to the proceedings, two\nprominent Huguenots were ceremoniously hanged. When the new ambassador\nfrom Spain praised the long concealment of the plan, Charles became\nindignant.[72] It was repeated everywhere that the thing had been\narranged with Rome and Spain; and he was especially studious that there\nshould be no symptoms of a private understanding with either power.[73]\nHe was able to flatter himself that he had at least partially succeeded.\nIf he had not exterminated his Protestant subjects, he had preserved his\nProtestant allies. William the Silent continued to solicit his aid;\nElizabeth consented to stand godmother to the daughter who was born to\nhim in October; he was allowed to raise mercenaries in Switzerland; and\nthe Polish Protestants agreed to the election of his brother. The\npromised evidence of the Huguenot conspiracy was forgotten; and the King\nsuppressed the materials which were to have served for an official\nhistory of the event.[74]\n\nZeal for religion was not the motive which inspired the chief authors of\nthis extraordinary crime. They were trained to look on the safety of the\nmonarchy as the sovereign law, and on the throne as an idol that\njustified sins committed in its worship. At all times there have been\nmen, resolute and relentless in the pursuit of their aims, whose ardour\nwas too strong to be restricted by moral barriers or the instinct of\nhumanity. In the sixteenth century, beside the fanaticism of freedom,\nthere was an abject idolatry of power; and laws both human and divine\nwere made to yield to the intoxication of authority and the reign of\nwill. It was laid down that kings have the right of disposing of the\nlives of their subjects, and may dispense with the forms of justice. The\nChurch herself, whose supreme pontiff was now an absolute monarch, was\ninfected with this superstition. Catholic writers found an opportune\nargument for their religion in the assertion that it makes the prince\nmaster of the consciences as well as the bodies of the people, and\nenjoins submission even to the vilest tyranny.[75] Men whose lives were\nprecious to the Catholic cause could be murdered by royal command,\nwithout protest from Rome. When the Duke of Guise, with the Cardinal his\nbrother, was slain by Henry III., he was the most powerful and devoted\nupholder of Catholicism in France. Sixtus V. thundered against the\nsacrilegious tyrant who was stained with the blood of a prince of the\nChurch; but he let it be known very distinctly that the death of the\nDuke caused him little concern.[76]\n\nCatherine was the daughter of that Medici to whom Machiavelli had\ndedicated his _Prince_. So little did religion actuate her conduct that\nshe challenged Elizabeth to do to the Catholics of England what she\nherself had done to the Protestants of France, promising that if they\nwere destroyed there would be no loss of her good will.[77] The levity\nof her religious feelings appears from her reply when asked by Gomicourt\nwhat message he should take to the Duke of Alva: \"I must give you the\nanswer of Christ to the disciples of St. John, 'Ite et nuntiate quae\nvidistis et audivistis; caeci vident, claudi ambulant, leprosi\nmundantur.'\" And she added, \"Beatus qui non fuerit in me\nscandalizatus.\"[78]\n\nIf mere fanaticism had been their motive, the men who were most active\nin the massacre would not have spared so many lives. While Guise was\ngalloping after Ferrieres and Montgomery, who had taken horse betimes,\nand made for the coast, his house at Paris was crowded with families\nbelonging to the proscribed faith, and strangers to him. A young girl\nwho was amongst them has described his return, when he sent for the\nchildren, spoke to them kindly, and gave orders that they should be well\ntreated as long as his roof sheltered them.[79] Protestants even spoke\nof him as a humane and chivalrous enemy.[80] Nevers was considered to\nhave disgraced himself by the number of those whom he enabled to\nescape.[81] The Nuncio was shocked at their ill-timed generosity. He\nreported to Rome that the only one who had acted in the spirit of a\nChristian, and had refrained from mercy, was the King; while the other\nprinces, who pretended to be good Catholics, and to deserve the favour\nof the Pope, had striven, one and all, to save as many Huguenots as they\ncould.[82]\n\nThe worst criminals were not the men who did the deed. The crime of mobs\nand courtiers, infuriated by the lust of vengeance and of power, is not\nso strange a portent as the exultation of peaceful men, influenced by no\npresent injury or momentary rage, but by the permanent and incurable\nperversion of moral sense wrought by a distorted piety.\n\nPhilip II., who had long suspected the court of France, was at once\nrelieved from the dread which had oppressed him, and betrayed an excess\nof joy foreign to his phlegmatic nature.[83] He immediately sent six\nthousand crowns to the murderer of Coligny.[84] He persuaded himself\nthat the breach between France and her allies was irreparable, that\nCharles would now be driven to seek his friendship, and that the\nNetherlands were out of danger.[85] He listened readily to the French\nambassador, who assured him that his court had never swerved from the\nline of Catholic policy, but had intended all along to effect this great\nchange.[86] Ayamonte carried his congratulations to Paris, and pretended\nthat his master had been in the secret. It suited Philip that this\nshould be believed by Protestant princes, in order to estrange them\nstill more from France; but he wrote on the margin of Ayamonte's\ninstructions, that it was uncertain how long previously the purpose had\nsubsisted.[87] Juan and Diego de Zuniga, his ambassadors at Rome and at\nParis, were convinced that the long display of enmity to Spain was\ngenuine, that the death of Coligny had been decided at the last moment,\nand that the rest was not the effect of design.[88] This opinion found\nfriends at first in Spain. The General of the Franciscans undertook to\nexplode it. He assured Philip that he had seen the King and the\nQueen-mother two years before, and had found them already so intent on\nthe massacre that he wondered how anybody could have the courage to\ndetract from their merit by denying it.[89] This view generally\nprevailed in Spain. Mendoca knows not which to admire more, the loyal\nand Catholic inhabitants of Paris, or Charles, who justified his title\nof the most Christian King by helping with his own hands to slaughter\nhis subjects.[90] Mariana witnessed the carnage, and imagined that it\nmust gladden every Catholic heart. Other Spaniards were gratified to\nthink that it had been contrived with Alva at Bayonne.\n\nAlva himself did not judge the event by the same light as Philip. He\nalso had distrusted the French Government; but he had not feared it\nduring the ascendency of the Huguenots. Their fall appeared to him to\nstrengthen France. In public he rejoiced with the rest. He complimented\nCharles on his valour and his religion, and claimed his own share of\nmerit. But he warned Philip that things had not changed favourably for\nSpain, and that the King of France was now a formidable neighbour.[91]\nFor himself, he said, he never would have committed so base a deed.\n\nThe seven Catholic Cantons had their own reason for congratulation.\nTheir countrymen had been busy actors on the scene; and three soldiers\nof the Swiss guard of Anjou were named as the slayers of the\nAdmiral.[92] On the 2nd of October they agreed to raise 6000 men for the\nKing's service. At the following Diet they demanded the expulsion of\nthe fugitive Huguenots who had taken refuge in the Protestant parts of\nthe Confederation. They made overtures to the Pope for a secret alliance\nagainst their Confederates.[93]\n\nIn Italy, where the life of a heretic was cheap, their wholesale\ndestruction was confessed a highly politic and ingenious act. Even the\nsage Venetians were constrained to celebrate it with a procession. The\nGrand Duke Cosmo had pointed out two years before that an insidious\npeace would afford excellent opportunities of extinguishing\nProtestantism; and he derived inexpressible consolation from the heroic\nenterprise.[94] The Viceroy of Naples, Cardinal Granvelle, received the\ntidings coldly. He was surprised that the event had been so long\npostponed, and he reproved the Cardinal of Lorraine for the\nunstatesmanlike delay.[95] The Italians generally were excited to warmer\nfeelings. They saw nothing to regret but the death of certain Catholics\nwho had been sacrificed to private revenge. Profane men approved the\nskill with which the trap was laid; and pious men acknowledged the\npresence of a genuine religious spirit in the French court.[96] The\nnobles and the Parisian populace were admired for their valour in\nobeying the sanctified commands of the good King. One fervent enthusiast\npraises God for the heavenly news, and also St. Bartholomew for having\nlent his extremely penetrating knife for the salutary sacrifice.[97] A\nmonth after the event the renowned preacher Panigarola delivered from\nthe pulpit a panegyric on the monarch who had achieved what none had\never heard or read before, by banishing heresy in a single day, and by a\nsingle word, from the Christian land of France.[98]\n\nThe French churches had often resounded with furious declamations; and\nthey afterwards rang with canticles of unholy joy. But the French clergy\ndoes not figure prominently in the inception or the execution of the\nsanguinary decree. Conti, a contemporary indeed, but too distant for\naccurate knowledge, relates that the parish priest went round, marking\nwith a white cross the dwellings of the people who were doomed.[99] He\nis contradicted by the municipal Registers of Paris.[100] Morvilliers,\nBishop of Orleans, though he had resigned the seals which he received\nfrom L'Hopital, still occupied the first place at the royal council. He\nwas consulted at the last moment, and it is said that he nearly fainted\nwith horror. He recovered, and gave his opinion with the rest. He is the\nonly French prelate, except the cardinals, whose complicity appears to\nbe ascertained. But at Orleans, where the bloodshed was more dreadful in\nproportion than at Paris, the signal is said to have been given, not by\nthe bishop, but by the King's preacher, Sorbin.\n\nSorbin is the only priest of the capital who is distinctly associated\nwith the act of the Government. It was his opinion that God has ordained\nthat no mercy shall be shown to heretics, that Charles was bound in\nconscience to do what he did, and that leniency would have been as\ncensurable in his case as precipitation was in that of Theodosius. What\nthe Calvinists called perfidy and cruelty seemed to him nothing but\ngenerosity and kindness.[101] These were the sentiments of the man from\nwhose hands Charles IX. received the last consolations of his religion.\nIt has been related that he was tortured in his last moments with\nremorse for the blood he had shed. His spiritual adviser was fitted to\ndispel such scruples. He tells us that he heard the last confession of\nthe dying King, and that his most grievous sorrow was that he left the\nwork unfinished.[102] In all that bloodstained history there is nothing\nmore tragic than the scene in which the last words preparing the soul\nfor judgment were spoken by such a confessor as Sorbin to such a\npenitent as Charles.\n\nEdmond Auger, one of the most able and eloquent of the Jesuits, was at\nthat time attracting multitudes by his sermons at Bordeaux. He denounced\nwith so much violence the heretics and the people in authority who\nprotected them, that the magistrates, fearing a cry for blood, proposed\nto silence or to moderate the preacher. Montpezat, Lieutenant of\nGuienne, arrived in time to prevent it. On the 30th of September he\nwrote to the King that he had done this, and that there were a score of\nthe inhabitants who might be despatched with advantage. Three days\nlater, when he was gone, more than two hundred Huguenots were\nmurdered.[103]\n\nApart from these two instances it is not known that the clergy\ninterfered in any part of France to encourage the assassins.\n\nThe belief was common at the time, and is not yet extinct, that the\nmassacre had been promoted and sanctioned by the Court of Rome. No\nevidence of this complicity, prior to the event, has ever been produced;\nbut it seemed consistent with what was supposed to have occurred in the\naffair of the dispensation. The marriage of Margaret of Valois with the\nKing of Navarre was invalid and illicit in the eyes of the Church; and\nit was known that Pius V. had sworn that he would never permit it. When\nit had been celebrated by a Cardinal, in the presence of a splendid\ncourt, and no more was heard of resistance on the part of Rome, the\nworld concluded that the dispensation had been obtained. De Thou says,\nin a manuscript note, that it had been sent, and was afterwards\nsuppressed by Salviati; and the French bishop, Spondanus, assigns the\nreasons which induced Gregory XIII. to give way.[104] Others affirmed\nthat he had yielded when he learned that the marriage was a snare, so\nthat the massacre was the price of the dispensation.[105] The Cardinal\nof Lorraine gave currency to the story. As he caused it to be understood\nthat he had been in the secret, it seemed probable that he had told the\nPope; for they had been old friends.[106] In the commemorative\ninscription which he put up in the Church of St. Lewis he spoke of the\nKing's gratitude to the Holy See for its assistance and for its advice\nin the matter--\"consiliorum ad eam rem datorum.\" It is probable that he\ninspired the narrative which has contributed most to sustain the\nimputation.\n\nAmong the Italians of the French faction who made it their duty to\nglorify the act of Charles IX., the Capilupi family was conspicuous.\nThey came from Mantua, and appear to have been connected with the French\ninterest through Lewis Gonzaga, who had become by marriage Duke of\nNevers, and one of the foremost personages in France. Hippolyto\nCapilupi, Bishop of Fano, and formerly Nuncio at Venice, resided at\nRome, busy with French politics and Latin poetry. When Charles refused\nto join the League, the Bishop of Fano vindicated his neutrality in a\nletter to the Duke of Urbino.[107] When he slew the Huguenots, the\nBishop addressed him in verse,--\n\n   Fortunate puer, paret cui Gallica tellus,\n     Quique vafros ludis pervigil arte viros,\n   Ille tibi debet, toti qui praesidet Orbi,\n     Cui nihil est cordi religione prius....\n\n   Qui tibi saepe dolos struxit, qui vincla paravit,\n     Tu puer in laqueos induis arte senem....\n\n   Nunc florent, tolluntque caput tua lilia, et astris\n     Clarius hostili tincta cruore micant.[108]\n\nCamillo Capilupi, a nephew of the Mantuan bard, held office about the\nperson of the Pope, and was employed on missions of consequence.[109] As\nsoon as the news from Paris reached Rome he drew up the account which\nbecame so famous under the title of _Lo Stratagemma di Carlo IX_. The\ndedication is dated the 18th of September 1572.[110] This tract was\nsuppressed, and was soon so rare that its existence was unknown in 1574\nto the French translator of the second edition. Capilupi republished his\nbook with alterations, and a preface dated the 22nd of October. The\nsubstance and purpose of the two editions is the same. Capilupi is not\nthe official organ of the Roman court: he was not allowed to see the\nletters of the Nuncio. He wrote to proclaim the praises of the King of\nFrance and the Duke of Nevers. At that moment the French party in Rome\nwas divided by the quarrel between the ambassador Ferralz and the\nCardinal of Lorraine, who had contrived to get the management of French\naffairs into his own hands.[111] Capilupi was on the side of the\nCardinal, and received information from those who were about him. The\nchief anxiety of these men was that the official version which\nattributed the massacre to a Huguenot conspiracy should obtain no\ncredence at Rome. If the Cardinal's enemies were overthrown without his\nparticipation, it would confirm the report that he had become a cipher\nin the State. He desired to vindicate for himself and his family the\nauthorship of the catastrophe. Catherine could not tolerate their claim\nto a merit which she had made her own; and there was competition between\nthem for the first and largest share in the gratitude of the Holy See.\nLorraine prevailed with the Pope, who not only loaded him with honours,\nbut rewarded him with benefices worth 4000 crowns a year for his nephew,\nand a gift of 20,000 crowns for his son. But he found that he had fallen\ninto disgrace at Paris, and feared for his position at Rome.[112] In\nthese circumstances Capilupi's book appeared, and enumerated a series of\nfacts proving that the Cardinal was cognisant of the royal design. It\nadds little to the evidence of premeditation. Capilupi relates that\nSanta Croce, returning from France, had assured Pius V., in the name of\nCatherine, that she intended one day to entrap Coligny, and to make a\nsignal butchery of him and his adherents, and that letters in which the\nQueen renewed this promise to the Pope had been read by credible\nwitnesses. Santa Croce was living, and did not contradict the statement.\nThe _Stratagemma_ had originally stated that Lorraine had informed\nSermoneta of the project soon after he arrived at Rome. In the reprint\nthis passage was omitted. The book had, therefore, undergone a censorial\nrevision, which enhances the authenticity of the final narrative.\n\nTwo other pieces are extant, which were printed at the Stamperia\nCamerale, and show what was believed at Rome. One is in the shape of a\nletter written at Lyons in the midst of scenes of death, and describing\nwhat the author had witnessed on the spot, and what he heard from\nParis.[113] He reports that the King had positively commanded that not\none Huguenot should escape, and was overjoyed at the accomplishment of\nhis orders. He believes the thing to have been premeditated, and\ninspired by Divine justice. The other tract is remarkable because it\nstrives to reconcile the pretended conspiracy with the hypothesis of\npremeditation.[114] There were two plots which went parallel for months.\nThe King knew that Coligny was compassing his death, and deceived him by\nfeigning to enter into his plan for the invasion of the Low Countries;\nand Coligny, allowing himself to be overreached, summoned his friends to\nParis, for the purpose of killing Charles, on the 23rd of August. The\nwriter expects that there will soon be no Huguenots in France. Capilupi\nat first borrowed several of his facts, which he afterwards corrected.\n\nThe real particulars relative to the marriage are set forth minutely in\nthe correspondence of Ferralz; and they absolutely contradict the\nsupposition of the complicity of Rome.[115] It was celebrated in\nflagrant defiance of the Pope, who persisted in refusing the\ndispensation, and therefore acted in a way which could only serve to\nmar the plot. The accusation has been kept alive by his conduct after\nthe event. The Jesuit who wrote his life by desire of his son, says that\nGregory thanked God in private, but that in public he gave signs of a\ntempered joy.[116] But the illuminations and processions, the singing of\nTe Deum and the firing of the castle guns, the jubilee, the medal, and\nthe paintings whose faded colours still vividly preserve to our age the\npassions of that day, nearly exhaust the modes by which a Pope could\nmanifest delight.\n\nCharles IX. and Salviati both wrote to Rome on St. Bartholomew's Day;\nand the ambassador's nephew, Beauville, set off with the tidings. They\nwere known before he arrived. On the 27th, Mandelot's secretary\ndespatched a secret messenger from Lyons with orders to inform the Pope\nthat the Huguenot leaders were slain, and that their adherents were to\nbe secured all over France. The messenger reached Rome on the 2nd of\nSeptember, and was immediately carried to the Pope by the Cardinal of\nLorraine. Gregory rewarded him for the welcome intelligence with a\npresent of a hundred crowns, and desired that Rome should be at once\nilluminated. This was prevented by Ferralz, who tried the patience of\nthe Romans by declining their congratulations as long as he was not\nofficially informed.[117] Beauville and the courier of the Nuncio\narrived on the 5th. The King's letter, like all that he wrote on the\nfirst day, ascribed the outbreak to the old hatred between the rival\nHouses, and to the late attempt on the Admiral's life. He expressed a\nhope that the dispensation would not now be withheld, but left all\nparticulars to Beauville, whose own eyes had beheld the scene.[118]\nBeauville told his story, and repeated the King's request; but Gregory,\nthough much gratified with what he heard, remained inflexible.[119]\n\nSalviati had written on the afternoon of the 24th. He desired to fling\nhimself at the Pope's feet to wish him joy. His fondest hopes had been\nsurpassed. Although he had known what was in store for Coligny, he had\nnot expected that there would be energy and prudence to seize the\noccasion for the destruction of the rest. A new era had commenced; a new\ncompass was required for French affairs. It was a fair sight to see the\nCatholics in the streets wearing white crosses, and cutting down\nheretics; and it was thought that, as fast as the news spread, the same\nthing would be done in all the towns of France.[120] This letter was\nread before the assembled Cardinals at the Venetian palace, and they\nthereupon attended the Pope to a Te Deum in the nearest church.[121]\nThe guns of St. Angelo were fired in the evening, and the city was\nilluminated for three nights. To disregard the Pope's will in this\nrespect would have savoured of heresy. Gregory XIII. exclaimed that the\nmassacre was more agreeable to him than fifty victories of Lepanto. For\nsome weeks the news from the French provinces sustained the rapture and\nexcitement of the Court.[122] It was hoped that other countries would\nfollow the example of France; the Emperor was informed that something of\nthe same kind was expected of him.[123] On the 8th of September the Pope\nwent in procession to the French Church of St. Lewis, where\nthree-and-thirty Cardinals attended at a mass of thanksgiving. On the\n11th he proclaimed a jubilee. In the Bull he said that forasmuch as God\nhad armed the King of France to inflict vengeance on the heretics for\nthe injuries done to religion, and to punish the leaders of the\nrebellion which had devastated his kingdom, Catholics should pray that\nhe might have grace to pursue his auspicious enterprise to the end, and\nso complete what he had begun so well.[124] Before a month had passed\nVasari was summoned from Florence to decorate the hall of kings with\npaintings of the massacre.[125] The work was pronounced his masterpiece;\nand the shameful scene may still be traced upon the wall, where, for\nthree centuries, it has insulted every pontiff that entered the Sixtine\nChapel.\n\nThe story that the Huguenots had perished because they were detected\nplotting the King's death was known at Rome on the 6th of September.\nWhile the sham edict and the imaginary trial served to confirm it in the\neyes of Europe, Catherine and her son took care that it should not\ndeceive the Pope. They assured him that they meant to disregard the\nedict. To excuse his sister's marriage, the King pleaded that it had\nbeen concluded for no object but vengeance; and he promised that there\nwould soon be not a heretic in the country.[126] This was corroborated\nby Salviati. As to the proclaimed toleration, he knew that it was a\ndevice to disarm foreign enmity, and prevent a popular commotion. He\ntestified that the Queen spoke truly when she said that she had confided\nto him, long before, the real purpose of her daughter's\nengagement.[127] He exposed the hollow pretence of the plot. He\nannounced that its existence would be established by formalities of law,\nbut added that it was so notoriously false that none but an idiot could\nbelieve in it.[128] Gregory gave no countenance to the official\nfalsehood. At the reception of the French ambassador, Rambouillet, on\nthe 23rd of December, Muretus made his famous speech. He said that there\ncould not have been a happier beginning for a new pontificate, and\nalluded to the fabulous plot in the tone exacted of French officials.\nThe Secretary, Boccapaduli, replying in behalf of the Pope, thanked the\nKing for destroying the enemies of Christ; but strictly avoided the\nconventional fable.[129]\n\nCardinal Orsini went as Legate to France. He had been appointed in\nAugust, and he was to try to turn the King's course into that line of\npolicy from which he had strayed under Protestant guidance. He had not\nleft Rome when the events occurred which altered the whole situation.\nOrsini was now charged with felicitations, and was to urge Charles not\nto stop half-way.[130] An ancient and obsolete ceremonial was suddenly\nrevived; and the Cardinals accompanied him to the Flaminian gate.[131]\nThis journey of Orsini, and the pomp with which it was surrounded, were\nexceedingly unwelcome at Paris. It was likely to be taken as proof of\nthat secret understanding with Rome which threatened to rend the\ndelicate web in which Charles was striving to hold the confidence of\nthe Protestant world.[132] He requested that the Legate might be\nrecalled; and the Pope was willing that there should be some delay.\nWhile Orsini tarried on his way, Gregory's reply to the announcement of\nthe massacre arrived at Paris. It was a great consolation to himself, he\nsaid, and an extraordinary grace vouchsafed to Christendom. But he\ndesired, for the glory of God and the good of France, that the Huguenots\nshould be extirpated utterly; and with that view he demanded the\nrevocation of the edict. When Catherine knew that the Pope was not yet\nsatisfied, and sought to direct the actions of the King, she could\nhardly restrain her rage. Salviati had never seen her so furious. The\nwords had hardly passed his lips when she exclaimed that she wondered at\nsuch designs, and was resolved to tolerate no interference in the\ngovernment of the kingdom. She and her son were Catholics from\nconviction, and not through fear or influence. Let the Pope content\nhimself with that.[133] The Nuncio had at once foreseen that the court,\nafter crushing the Huguenots, would not become more amenable to the\ncounsels of Rome. He wrote, on the very day of St. Bartholomew, that the\nKing would be very jealous of his authority, and would exact obedience\nfrom both sides alike.\n\nAt this untoward juncture Orsini appeared at Court. To Charles, who had\ndone so much, it seemed unreasonable that he should be asked for more.\nHe represented to Orsini that it was impossible to eradicate all the\nremnants of a faction which had been so strong. He had put seventy\nthousand Huguenots to the sword; and, if he had shown compassion to the\nrest, it was in order that they might become good Catholics.[134]\n\nThe hidden thoughts which the Court of Rome betrayed by its conduct on\nthis memorable occasion have brought upon the Pope himself an amount of\nhatred greater than he deserved. Gregory XIII. appears as a pale figure\nbetween the two strongest of the modern Popes, without the intense zeal\nof the one and the ruthless volition of the other. He was not prone to\nlarge conceptions or violent resolutions. He had been converted late in\nlife to the spirit of the Tridentine Reformation; and when he showed\nrigour it was thought to be not in his character, but in the counsels of\nthose who influenced him.[135] He did not instigate the crime, nor the\natrocious sentiments that hailed it. In the religious struggle a frenzy\nhad been kindled which made weakness violent, and turned good men into\nprodigies of ferocity; and at Rome, where every loss inflicted on\nCatholicism and every wound was felt, the belief that, in dealing with\nheretics, murder is better than toleration prevailed for half a century.\nThe predecessor of Gregory had been Inquisitor-General. In his eyes\nProtestants were worse than Pagans, and Lutherans more dangerous than\nother Protestants.[136] The Capuchin preacher, Pistoja, bore witness\nthat men were hanged and quartered almost daily at Rome;[137] and Pius\ndeclared that he would release a culprit guilty of a hundred murders\nrather than one obstinate heretic.[138] He seriously contemplated razing\nthe town of Faenza because it was infested with religious error, and he\nrecommended a similar expedient to the King of France.[139] He adjured\nhim to hold no intercourse with the Huguenots, to make no terms with\nthem, and not to observe the terms he had made. He required that they\nshould be pursued to the death, that not one should be spared under any\npretence, that all prisoners should suffer death.[140] He threatened\nCharles with the punishment of Saul when he forebore to exterminate the\nAmalekites.[141] He told him that it was his mission to avenge the\ninjuries of the Lord, and that nothing is more cruel than mercy to the\nimpious.[142] When he sanctioned the murder of Elizabeth he proposed\nthat it should be done in execution of his sentence against her.[143] It\nbecame usual with those who meditated assassination or regicide on the\nplea of religion to look upon the representatives of Rome as their\nnatural advisers. On the 21st of January 1591, a young Capuchin came, by\npermission of his superiors, to Sega, Bishop of Piacenza, then Nuncio at\nParis. He said that he was inflamed with the desire of a martyr's death;\nand having been assured by divines that it would be meritorious to kill\nthat heretic and tyrant, Henry of Navarre, he asked to be dispensed from\nthe rule of his Order while he prepared his measures and watched his\nopportunity. The Nuncio would not do this without authority from Rome;\nbut the prudence, courage, and humility which he discerned in the friar\nmade him believe that the design was really inspired from above. To make\nthis certain, and to remove all scruples, he submitted the matter to the\nPope, and asked his blessing upon it, promising that whatever he decided\nshould be executed with all discretion.[144]\n\nThe same ideas pervaded the Sacred College under Gregory. There are\nletters of profuse congratulation by the Cardinals of Lorraine, Este,\nand Pelleve. Bourbon was an accomplice before the fact. Granvelle\ncondemned not the act but the delay. Delfino and Santorio approved. The\nCardinal of Alessandria had refused the King's gift at Blois, and had\nopposed his wishes at the conclave. Circumstances were now so much\naltered that the ring was offered to him again, and this time it was\naccepted.[145] The one dissentient from the chorus of applause is said\nto have been Montalto. His conduct when he became Pope makes it very\nimprobable; and there is no good authority for the story. But Leti has\nit, who is so far from a panegyrist that it deserves mention.\n\nThe theory which was framed to justify these practices has done more\nthan plots and massacres to cast discredit on the Catholics. This theory\nwas as follows: Confirmed heretics must be rigorously punished whenever\nit can be done without the probability of greater evil to religion.\nWhere that is feared, the penalty may be suspended or delayed for a\nseason, provided it be inflicted whenever the danger is past.[146]\nTreaties made with heretics, and promises given to them must not be\nkept, because sinful promises do not bind, and no agreement is lawful\nwhich may injure religion or ecclesiastical authority. No civil power\nmay enter into engagements which impede the free scope of the Church's\nlaw.[147] It is part of the punishment of heretics that faith shall not\nbe kept with them.[148] It is even mercy to kill them that they may sin\nno more.[149]\n\nSuch were the precepts and the examples by which the French Catholics\nlearned to confound piety and ferocity, and were made ready to immolate\ntheir countrymen. During the civil war an association was formed in the\nSouth for the purpose of making war upon the Huguenots; and it was\nfortified by Pius V. with blessings and indulgences. \"We doubt not,\" it\nproclaimed, \"that we shall be victorious over these enemies of God and\nof all humankind; and if we fall, our blood will be as a second baptism,\nby which, without impediment, we shall join the other martyrs\nstraightway in heaven.\"[150] Monluc, who told Alva at Bayonne that he\nhad never spared an enemy, was shot through the face at the siege of\nRabasteins. Whilst he believed that he was dying, they came to tell him\nthat the place was taken. \"Thank God!\" he said, \"that I have lived long\nenough to behold our victory; and now I care not for death. Go back, I\nbeseech you, and give me a last proof of friendship, by seeing that not\none man of the garrison escapes alive.\"[151] When Alva had defeated and\ncaptured Genlis, and expected to make many more Huguenot prisoners in\nthe garrison of Mons, Charles IX. wrote to Mondoucet \"that it would be\nfor the service of God, and of the King of Spain, that they should die.\nIf the Duke of Alva answers that this is a tacit request to have all the\nprisoners cut to pieces, you will tell him that that is what he must do,\nand that he will injure both himself and all Christendom if he fails to\ndo it.\"[152] This request also reached Alva through Spain. Philip wrote\non the margin of the despatch that, if he had not yet put them out of\nthe world, he must do so immediately, as there could be no reason for\ndelay.[153] The same thought occurred to others. On the 22nd of July\nSalviati writes that it would be a serious blow to the faction if Alva\nwould kill his prisoners; and Granvelle wrote that, as they were all\nHuguenots, it would be well to throw them all into the river.[154]\n\nWhere these sentiments prevailed, Gregory XIII. was not alone in\ndeploring that the work had been but half done. After the first\nexplosion of gratified surprise men perceived that the thing was a\nfailure, and began to call for more. The clergy of Rouen Cathedral\ninstituted a procession of thanksgiving, and prayed that the King might\ncontinue what he had so virtuously begun, until all France should\nprofess one faith.[155] There are signs that Charles was tempted at one\nmoment, during the month of October, to follow up the blow.[156] But he\ndied without pursuing the design; and the hopes were turned to his\nsuccessor. When Henry III. passed through Italy on his way to assume the\ncrown, there were some who hoped that the Pope would induce him to set\nresolutely about the extinction of the Huguenots. A petition was\naddressed to Gregory for this purpose, in which the writer says that\nhitherto the French court has erred on the side of mercy, but that the\nnew king might make good the error if rejecting that pernicious maxim\nthat noble blood spilt weakens a kingdom, he would appoint an execution\nwhich would be cruel only in appearance, but in reality glorious and\nholy, and destroy the heretics totally, sparing neither life nor\nproperty.[157] Similar exhortations were addressed from Rome to Henry\nhimself by Muzio, a layman who had gained repute, among other things, by\ncontroversial writings, of which Pius V. said that they had preserved\nthe faith in whole districts, and who had been charged with the task of\nrefuting the Centuriators. On the 17th of July 1574, Muzio wrote to the\nKing that all Italy waited in reliance on his justice and valour, and\nbesought him to spare neither old nor young, and to regard neither rank\nnor ties of blood.[158] These hopes also were doomed to disappointment;\nand a Frenchman, writing in the year of Henry's death, laments over the\ncruel clemency and inhuman mercy that reigned on St. Bartholomew's\nDay.[159]\n\nThis was not the general opinion of the Catholic world. In Spain and\nItaly, where hearts were hardened and consciences corrupted by the\nInquisition; in Switzerland, where the Catholics lived in suspicion and\ndread of their Protestant neighbours; among ecclesiastical princes in\nGermany, whose authority waned as fast as their subjects abjured their\nfaith, the massacre was welcomed as an act of Christian fortitude. But\nin France itself the great mass of the people was struck with\nconsternation.[160] \"Which maner of proceedings,\" writes Walsingham on\nthe 13th of September, \"is by the Catholiques themselves utterly\ncondemned, who desire to depart hence out of this country, to quit\nthemselves of this strange kind of government, for that they see here\nnone can assure themselves of either goods or life.\" Even in places\nstill steeped in mourning for the atrocities suffered at the hands of\nHuguenots during the civil war, at Nimes, for instance, the King's\norders produced no act of vengeance. At Carcassonne, the ancient seat of\nthe Inquisition, the Catholics concealed the Protestants in their\nhouses.[161] In Provence, the news from Lyons and the corpses that came\ndown in the poisoned waters of the Rhone awakened nothing but horror and\ncompassion.[162] Sir Thomas Smith wrote to Walsingham that in England\n\"the minds of the most number are much alienated from that nation, even\nof the very Papists.\"[163] At Rome itself Zuniga pronounced the\ntreachery of which the French were boasting unjustifiable, even in the\ncase of heretics and rebels;[164] and it was felt as an outrage to\npublic opinion when the murderer of Coligny was presented to the\nPope.[165] The Emperor was filled with grief and indignation. He said\nthat the King and Queen-mother would live to learn that nothing could\nhave been more iniquitously contrived or executed: his uncle Charles V.,\nand his father Ferdinand, had made war on the Protestants, but they had\nnever been guilty of so cruel an act.[166] At that moment Maximilian was\nseeking the crown of Poland for his son; and the events in France were a\nweapon in his hands against his rival, Anjou. Even the Czar of Muscovy,\nIvan the Terrible, replying to his letters, protested that all Christian\nprinces must lament the barbarous and needless shedding of so much\ninnocent blood. It was not the rivalry of the moment that animated\nMaximilian. His whole life proves him to have been an enemy of violence\nand cruelty; and his celebrated letter to Schwendi, written long after,\nshows that his judgment remained unchanged. It was the Catholic Emperor\nwho roused the Lutheran Elector of Saxony to something like resentment\nof the butchery in France.[167]\n\nFor the Lutherans were not disposed to recognise the victims of Charles\nIX. as martyrs for the Protestant cause. During the wars of religion\nLutheran auxiliaries were led by a Saxon prince, a margrave of Baden,\nand other German magnates, to aid the Catholic forces in putting down\nthe heresy of Calvin. These feelings were so well known that the French\nGovernment demanded of the Duke of Wirtemberg the surrender of the\nHuguenots who had fled into his dominions.[168] Lutheran divines\nflattered themselves at first with the belief that it was the\nCalvinistic error, not the Protestant truth, that had invited and\nreceived the blow.[169] The most influential of them, Andreae, declared\nthat the Huguenots were not martyrs but rebels, who had died not for\nreligion but sedition; and he bade the princes beware of the contagion\nof their spirit, which had deluged other lands with blood. When\nElizabeth proposed a league for the defence of Protestantism, the North\nGerman divines protested against an alliance with men whose crime was\nnot only religious error but blasphemous obstinacy, the root of many\ndreadful heresies. The very proposal, they said, argued a disposition to\nprefer human succour rather than the word of God.[170] When another\ninvitation came from Henry of Navarre, the famous divine Chemnitz\ndeclared union with the disciples of Calvin a useless abomination.[171]\n\nThe very men whose own brethren had perished in France were not hearty\nor unanimous in execrating the deed.[172] There were Huguenots who\nthought that their party had brought ruin on itself, by provoking its\nenemies, and following the rash counsels of ambitious men.[173] This\nwas the opinion of their chief, Theodore Beza, himself. Six weeks\nbefore, he wrote that they were gaining in numbers but losing in\nquality, and he feared lest, after destroying superstition, they should\ndestroy religion: \"Valde metuo ne superstitioni successerit\nimpietas.\"[174] And afterwards he declared that nobody who had known the\nstate of the French Protestants could deny that it was a most just\njudgment upon them.[175]\n\nBeza held very stringent doctrines touching the duty of the civil\nmagistrate to repress religious error. He thought that heresy is worse\nthan murder, and that the good of society requires no crime to be more\nseverely punished.[176] He declared toleration contrary to revealed\nreligion and the constant tradition of the Church, and taught that\nlawful authority must be obeyed, even by those whom it persecutes. He\nexpressly recognised this function in Catholic States, and urged\nSigismund not to rest until he had got rid of the Socinians in\nPoland;[177] but he could not prevail against the vehement resistance of\nCardinal Hosius. It was embarrassing to limit these principles when they\nwere applied against his own Church. For a moment Beza doubted whether\nit had not received its death-blow in France. But he did not qualify the\npropositions which were open to be interpreted so fatally,[178] or deny\nthat his people, by their vices, if not by their errors, had deserved\nwhat they had suffered.\n\nThe applause which greeted their fate came not from the Catholics\ngenerally, nor from the Catholics alone. While the Protestants were\nready to palliate or excuse it, the majority of the Catholics who were\nnot under the direct influence of Madrid or Rome recognised the\ninexpiable horror of the crime. But the desire to defend what the Pope\napproved survived sporadically, when the old fierceness of dogmatic\nhatred was extinct. A generation passed without any perceptible change\nin the judgment of Rome. It was a common charge against De Thou that he\nhad condemned the blameless act of Charles IX. The blasphemies of the\nHuguenots, said one of his critics, were more abominable than their\nretribution.[179] His History was put on the Index; and Cardinal\nBarberini let him know that he was condemned because he not only\nfavoured Protestants to the detriment of Catholics, but had even\ndisapproved the Massacre of St. Bartholomew.[180] Eudaemon-Johannes, the\nfriend of Bellarmine, pronounces it a pious and charitable act, which\nimmortalised its author.[181] Another Jesuit, Bompiani, says that it was\ngrateful to Gregory, because it was likely to relieve the Church.[182]\nThe well-known apology for Charles IX. by Naude is based rather on\npolitical than religious grounds; but his contemporary Guyon, whose\nHistory of Orleans is pronounced by the censors full of sound doctrine\nand pious sentiment, deems it unworthy of Catholics to speak of the\nmurder of heretics as if it were a crime, because, when done under\nlawful authority, it is a blessed thing.[183] When Innocent XI. refused\nto approve the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, Frenchmen wondered\nthat he should so far depart from the example which was kept before him\nby one of the most conspicuous ornaments of his palace.[184] The old\nspirit was decaying fast in France, and the superb indignation of\nBossuet fairly expresses the general opinion of his time. Two works were\npublished on the medals of the Popes, by a French and an Italian writer.\nThe Frenchman awkwardly palliates the conduct of Gregory XIII.; the\nItalian heartily defends it.[185] In Italy it was still dangerous\nground. Muratori shrinks from pronouncing on the question,[186] while\nCienfuegos, a Jesuit whom his Order esteemed one of the most\ndistinguished Cardinals of the day, judges that Charles IX. died too\nsoon for his fame.[187] Tempesti, who lived under the enlightened rule\nof Benedict XIV., accuses Catherine of having arrested the slaughter, in\norder that some cause should remain to create a demand for her\ncounsels.[188] The German Jesuit Biner and the Papal historian Piatti,\njust a century ago, are among the last downright apologists.[189]\n\nThen there was a change. A time came when the Catholics, having long\nrelied on force, were compelled to appeal to opinion. That which had\nbeen defiantly acknowledged and defended required to be ingeniously\nexplained away. The same motive which had justified the murder now\nprompted the lie. Men shrank from the conviction that the rulers and\nrestorers of their Church had been murderers and abetters of murder, and\nthat so much infamy had been coupled with so much zeal. They feared to\nsay that the most monstrous of crimes had been solemnly approved at\nRome, lest they should devote the Papacy to the execration of mankind. A\nswarm of facts were invented to meet the difficulty: The victims were\ninsignificant in number; they were slain for no reason connected with\nreligion; the Pope believed in the existence of the plot; the plot was a\nreality; the medal is fictitious; the massacre was a feint concerted\nwith the Protestants themselves; the Pope rejoiced only when he heard\nthat it was over.[190] These things were repeated so often that they\nhave been sometimes believed; and men have fallen into this way of\nspeaking whose sincerity was unimpeachable, and who were not shaken in\ntheir religion by the errors or the vices of Popes. Moehler was\npre-eminently such a man. In his lectures on the history of the Church,\nwhich were published only last year,[191] he said that the Catholics, as\nsuch, took no part in the massacre; that no cardinal, bishop, or priest\nshared in the councils that prepared it; that Charles informed the Pope\nthat a conspiracy had been discovered; and that Gregory made his\nthanksgiving only because the King's life was saved.[192] Such things\nwill cease to be written when men perceive that truth is the only merit\nthat gives dignity and worth to history.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 6: _North British Review_, Oct. 1869.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Satius fore ducebam, si minus profligari possent omnes, ut\nferrentur omnes, quo mordentes et comedentes invicem, consumerentur ab\ninvicem (Hosius to Karnkowsky, Feb. 26, 1568).]\n\n[Footnote 8: The Secretary of Medina Celi to Cayas, June 24, 1572\n(_Correspondance de Philippe II._, ii. 264).]\n\n[Footnote 9: Quant a ce qui me touche a moy en particulier, encores que\nj'ayme unicquement tous mes enffans, je veulx preferer, comme il est\nbien raysonnable, les filz aux filles; et pour le regard de ce que me\nmandez de celluy qui a faict mourir ma fille, c'est chose que l'on ne\ntient point pour certaine, et ou elle le seroit, le roy monsieur mondit\nfilz n'en pouvoit faire la vengence en l'estat que son royaulme estoit\nlors; mais a present qu'il est tout uni, il aura assez de moien et de\nforces pour sen ressentir quant l'occasion s'en presentera (Catherine to\nDu Ferrier, Oct. 1, 1572; Bib. Imp. F. Fr. 15,555). The despatches of\nFourquevaulx from Madrid, published by the Marquis Du Prat in the\n_Histoire d' Elisabeth de Valois_, do not confirm the rumour.]\n\n[Footnote 10: Toutes mes fantaisies sont bandees pour m'opposer a la\ngrandeur des Espagnols, et delibere m'y conduire le plus dextrement\nqu'il me sera possible (Charles IX. to Noailles, May 2, 1572; Noailles,\n_Henri de Valois_, i. 8).]\n\n[Footnote 11: Il fault, et je vous prie ne faillir, quand bien il seroit\ndu tout rompu, et que verries qu'il n'y auroit nulle esperance, de\ntrouver moyen d'en entrettenir toujours doucement le propos, d'ici a\nquelque temps; car cella ne peut que bien servir a establir mes affaires\net aussy pour ma reputation (Charles IX. to La Mothe, Aug. 9, 1572;\n_Corr. de La Mothe_, vii. 311).]\n\n[Footnote 12: This is stated both by his mother and by the Cardinal of\nLorraine (Michelet, _La Ligue_, p. 26).]\n\n[Footnote 13: In reliqua Gallia fuit et est incredibilis defectio, quae\ntamen usque adeo non pacavit immanes illas feras, ut etiam eos qui\ndefecerunt (qui pene sunt innumerabiles) semel ad internecionem una cum\nintegris familiis trucidare prorsus decreverint (Beza, Dec. 3, 1572;\n_Ill. vir. Epp. Sel._, p. 621, 1617).]\n\n[Footnote 14: Languet to the Duke of Saxony, Nov. 30, 1572 (_Arcana_,\nsec. xvi. 183).]\n\n[Footnote 15: Vidi et cum dolore intellexi lanienam illam Gallicam\nperfidissimam et atrocissimam plurimos per Germaniam ita offendisse, ut\njam etiam de veritate nostrae Religionis et doctrinae dubitare\nincoeperint (Bullinger to Wittgenstein, Feb. 23, 1573; Friedlaender,\n_Beitraege zur rel. Gesch._, p. 254).]\n\n[Footnote 16: De Thou, _Memoires_, p. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 17: Il me dist qu'on luy avoist escript de Rome, n'avoit que\ntrois semaines ou environ, sur le propos des noces du roy de Navarre en\nces propres termes; Que a ceste heure que tous les oiseaux estoient en\ncage, on les pouvoit prendre tous ensemble (Vulcob to Charles IX., Sept.\n26, 1572; Noailles, iii. 214).]\n\n[Footnote 18: _Memoires de Duplessis-Mornay_, i. 38; Ambert,\n_Duplessis-Mornay_, p. 38.]\n\n[Footnote 19: Digges, _Compleat Ambassador_, pp. 276, 255.]\n\n[Footnote 20: Correr, _Relazione_; Tommaseo, ii. 116.]\n\n[Footnote 21: He said to Catherine: Que quando quisiesen usar de otro y\naverlo, con no mas personas que con cinc o seys que son el cabo de todo\nesto, los tomasen a su mano y les cortasen las cabecas (Alva to Philip\nII., June 21, 1565; _Papiers de Granvelle_, ix. 298).]\n\n[Footnote 22: Ci rallegriamo con la maesta sua con tutto l' affetto\ndell' animo, ch' ella habbia presa quella risolutione cosi\nopportunamente sopra la quale noi stesso l' ultima volta che fummo in\nFrancia parlammo con la Regina Madre.... Dipoi per diversi gentilhuomini\nche in varie occorrenze habbiamo mandato in corte siamo instati nel\nsuddetto ricordo (Alfonso II. to Fogliani, Sept. 13, 1572; Modena\nArchives).]\n\n[Footnote 23: Muchas vezes me ha accordado de aver dicho a Su Mag. esto\nmismo en Bayona, y de lo que mi offrecio, y veo que ha muy bien\ndesempenado su palabra (Alva to Zuniga, Sept. 9, 1572; Coquerel, _La St.\nBarthelemy_, p. 12).]\n\n[Footnote 24: Kluckhohn, _Zur Geschichte des angeblichen Buendnisses von\nBayonne_, p. 36, 1868.]\n\n[Footnote 25: Il signor duca di Alva ... mi disse, che come in questo\nabboccamento negotio alcuno non havevano trattato, ne volevano trattare,\naltro che della religione, cosi la lor differenza era nata per questo,\nperche non vedeva che la regina ci pigliasse risolutione a modo suo ne\nde altro, che di buone parole ben generali.... E stato risoluto che alla\ntornata in Parigi si fara una ricerca di quelli che hanno contravenuto\nall' editto, e si castigaranno; nel che dice S.M. che gli Ugonotti ci\nsono talmente compresi, che spera con questo mezzo solo cacciare i\nMinistri di Francia.... Il Signor Duca di Alva si satisfa piu di questa\ndeliberatione di me, perche io non trovo che serva all' estirpation\ndell' heresia il castigar quelli che hanno contravenuto all' editto\n(Santa Croce to Borromeo, Bayonne, July 1, 1565, MS.).]\n\n[Footnote 26: Desjardins, _Negociations avec la Toscane_, iii. 756, 765,\n802.]\n\n[Footnote 27: Io non no fatto intendere cosa alcuna a nessuno principe;\nho ben parlato al nunzio solo (Desp. Aug. 31; Desjardins, iii. 828).]\n\n[Footnote 28: Alberi, _Relazioni Venete_, xii. 250.]\n\n[Footnote 29: Alberi, xii. 328.]\n\n[Footnote 30: Son principal but et dessein estoit de sentir quelle\nesperance ilz pourroient avoir de parvenir a la paix avec le G.S. dont\nil s'est ouvert et a demande ce qu'il en pouvoit esperer et attendre\n(Charles IX. to Du Ferrier, Sept. 28, 1572; Charriere, _Negociations\ndans le Levant_, iii. 310).]\n\n[Footnote 31: Ranke, _Franzoesische Geschichte_, v. 76.]\n\n[Footnote 32: Digges, p. 258; Cosmi, _Memorie di Morosini_, p. 26.]\n\n[Footnote 33: Alberi, xii. 294.]\n\n[Footnote 34: Mittit eo Antonium Mariam Salviatum, reginae affinem eique\npergratum, qui eam in officio contineat (Cardinal of Vercelli, _Comment.\nde Rebus Gregorii_ XIII.; Ranke, _Paepste_, App. 85).]\n\n[Footnote 35: Desp. Aug. 30, 1570.]\n\n[Footnote 36: Oct. 14, 1570.]\n\n[Footnote 37: Sept. 24, 1570.]\n\n[Footnote 38: Nov. 28, 1570.]\n\n[Footnote 39: Quando scrissi ai giorni passati alla S.V. Illma in\ncifra, che l'ammiraglio s' avanzava troppo et che gli darebbero su l'\nunge, gia mi ero accorto, che non lo volevano piu tollerare, et molto\npiu mi confermai nell' opinione, quando con caratteri ordinarii glie\nscrivevo che speravo di dover haver occasione di dar qualche buona nova\na Sua Beatitudine, benche mai havrei creduto la x. parte di quello, che\nal presente veggo con gli occhi (Desp. Aug. 24; Theiner, _Annales_, i.\n329).]\n\n[Footnote 40: Che molti siano stati consapevoli del fatto e necessario,\npotendogli dizer che a 21 la mattina, essendo col Cardinal di Borbone et\nM. de Montpensier, viddi che ragionavano si domesticamente di quello che\ndoveva seguire, che in me medesimo restando confuso, conobbi che la\nprattica andava gagliarda, e piutosto disperai di buon fine che\naltrimente (same Desp.; Mackintosh, _History of England_, ii. 355).]\n\n[Footnote 41: Attribuisce a se, et al nipote, et a casa sua, la morte\ndel' ammiraglio, gloriandosene assai (Desp. Oct. 1; Theiner, p. 331).\nThe Emperor told the French ambassador \"que, depuis les choses avenues,\non lui avoit mande de Rome que Mr. le Cardinal de Lorraine avoit dit que\ntout le fait avoit este delibere avant qu'il partist de France\" (Vulcob\nto Charles IX., Nov. 8; Groen van Prinsterer, _Archives de Nassau_, iv.\nApp. 22).]\n\n[Footnote 42: Marlot, _Histoire de Reims_, iv. 426. This language\nexcited the surprise of Dale, Walsingham's successor (Mackintosh, iii.\n226).]\n\n[Footnote 43: _Archives Curieuses_, viii. 305.]\n\n[Footnote 44: Egli solo tra tutti gli altri e solito particolarmente di\nsostenere le nostre fatiche.... Essendo partecipe di tutti i nostri\nconsigli, et consapevole de segreti dell' intimo animo nostro (Pius V.\nto Philip II., June 20, 1571; Zucchi, _Idea del Segretario_, i. 544).]\n\n[Footnote 45: Serranus, _Commentarii_, iv. 14; Davila, ii. 104.]\n\n[Footnote 46: Digges, p. 193.]\n\n[Footnote 47: Finis hujus legationis erat non tam suadere Regi ut foedus\ncum aliis Christianis principibus iniret (id nempe notum erat\nimpossibile illi regno esse); sed ut rex ille praetermissus non\nvideretur, et revera ut sciretur quo tenderent Gallorum cogitationes.\nNon longe nempe a Rocella naves quasdam praegrandes instruere et armare\ncoeperat Philippus Strozza praetexens velle ad Indias a Gallis inventas\nnavigare (_Relatio gestorum in Legatione Card. Alexandrini MS._).]\n\n[Footnote 48: Con alcuni particulari che io porto, de' quali\nragguagliero N. Signore a bocca, posso dire di non partirmi affatto mal\nespedito (Ranke, _Zeitschrift_, iii. 598). Le temps et les effectz luy\ntemoigneront encores d'advantage (_Memoire baille au legat Alexandrin_,\nFeb. 1572; Bib. Imp. F. Dupuy, 523).]\n\n[Footnote 49: _De Sacro Foedere, Graevius Thesaurus_, i. 1038.]\n\n[Footnote 50: Catena, _Vita di Pio V._, p. 197; Gabutius, _Vita Pii V._,\np. 150, and the Dedication.]\n\n[Footnote 51: D'Ossat to Villeroy, Sept. 22, 1599; _Lettres_, iii. 503.\nAn account of the Legate's journey was found by Mendham among Lord\nGuildford's manuscripts, and is described in the Supplement to his life\nof Pius V., p. 13. It is written by the Master of Ceremonies, and\npossesses no interest. The _Relatio_ already quoted, which corresponds\nto the description given by Clement VIII. of his own work, is among the\nmanuscripts of the Marquis Capponi, No. 164.]\n\n[Footnote 52: Vuol andar con ogni quiete et dissimulatione, fin che il\nRe suo figliolo sia in eta (Santa Croce, Desp. June 27, 1563; _Lettres\ndu Card. Santa Croce_, p. 243).]\n\n[Footnote 53: La Chastre to Charles IX., Jan. 21, 1570; Raynal,\n_Histoire du Berry_, iv. 105; Lavallee, _Histoire des Francais_, ii.\n478. Both Raynal and Lavallee had access to the original.]\n\n[Footnote 54: Il Papa credeva che la pace fatta, e l'aver consentito il\nRe che l'Ammiraglio venisse in corte, fusse con disegno di ammazzarlo;\nma accortosi come passa il fatto, non ha creduto che nel Re Nostro sia\nquella brava resoluzione (Letter of Nov. 28, 1571; Desjardins, iii.\n732). Pour le regard de M. l'Admiral, je n'ay failly de luy faire\nentendre ce que je devois, suyvant ce qu'il a pleu a V.M. me commander,\ndont il est demeure fort satisfaict (Ferralz to Charles IX., Dec. 25,\n1571; Bib. Imp. F. Fr. 16,039; Walsingham to Herbert, Oct. 10, 1571; to\nSmith, Nov. 26, 1572; Digges, p. 290).]\n\n[Footnote 55: Marcel to Charles IX., December 20, 1571; _Cabinet\nHistorique_, ii. 253.]\n\n[Footnote 56: Le Roy estoit d'intelligence, ayant permis a ceux de la\nReligion de l'assister, et, cas advenant que leurs entreprises\nsuccedassent, qu'il les favoriserait ouvertement ... Genlis, menant un\nsecours dans Mons, fut defait par le duc d'Alve, qui avoit comme investi\nla ville. La journee de Saint-Barthelemi se resolut (Bouillon,\n_Memoires_, p. 9).]\n\n[Footnote 57: Si potria distruggere il resto, maxime che l'ammiraglio si\ntrova in Parigi, populo Catholico et devoto del suo Re, dove potria se\nvolesse facilmente levarselo dinnanzi per sempre (Castagna, Desp. Aug.\n5, 1572; Theiner, i. 327).]\n\n[Footnote 58: _Memoires de Claude Haton_, 687.]\n\n[Footnote 59: En quelque sorte que ce soit ledict Seigneur est resollu\nfaire vivre ses subjectz en sa religion, et ne permettre jamais ny\ntollerer, quelque chose qui puisse advenir, qu'il n'y ait aultre forme\nny exercice de religion en son royaulme que de la catholique\n(Instruction for the Governors of Normandy, Nov. 3, 1572; La Mothe, vii.\n390).]\n\n[Footnote 60: Charles IX. to Mondoucet, Aug. 26, 1572; _Compte Rendu de\nla Commission Royale d' Histoire_, 2e Serie, iv. 327.]\n\n[Footnote 61: Li Ugonotti si ridussero alla porta del Louvre, per\naspettare che Mons. di Guisa e Mons. d'Aumale uscissero per ammazzarli\n(Borso Trotti, Desp. Aug. 23; Modena Archives).]\n\n[Footnote 62: L'on a commence a descouvrir la conspiration que ceux de\nla religion pretendue reformee avoient faicte contre moy mesmes, ma mere\net mes freres (Charles IX. to La Mothe, Aug. 25; La Mothe, vii. 325).]\n\n[Footnote 63: Desp. Sept. 19, 1572.]\n\n[Footnote 64: Il ne fault pas attendre d'en avoir d'autre commandement\ndu Roy ne de Monseigneur, car ils ne vous en feront point (Puygaillard\nto Montsoreau, Aug. 26, 1572; Mourin, _La Reforme en Anjou_, p. 106).]\n\n[Footnote 65: Vous croirez le present porteur de ce que je luy ay donne\ncharge de vous dire (Charles IX. to Mandelot, Aug. 24, 1572; _Corr. de\nCharles IX. avec Mandelot_, p. 42).]\n\n[Footnote 66: Je n'en ay aucune coulpe, n'ayant sceu quelle estoit la\nvolunte que par umbre, encores bien tard et a demy (Mandelot to Charles\nIX., Sept. 17, p. 73).]\n\n[Footnote 67: Floquet, _Histoire du Parlement de Normandie_, iii. 121.]\n\n[Footnote 68: Anjou to Montsoreau, Aug. 26; Mourin, p. 107; Falloux,\n_Vie de Pie V._, i. 358; Port, _Archives de la Mairie d'Angers_, pp. 41,\n42.]\n\n[Footnote 69: Schomberg to Brulart, Oct. 10, 1572; Capefigue, _La\nReforme_, iii. 264.]\n\n[Footnote 70: Instructions for Schomberg, Feb. 15, 1573; Noailles, iii.\n305.]\n\n[Footnote 71: Monluc to Brulart, Nov. 20, 1572; Jan. 20, 1573: to\nCharles IX., Jan. 22, 1573; Noailles, iii. 218, 223, 220.]\n\n[Footnote 72: Charles IX. to St. Goard, Jan. 20, 1573; Groen, iv. App.\n29.]\n\n[Footnote 73: Letter from Paris in Strype's _Life of Parker_, iii. 110;\n\"Tocsain contre les Massacreurs,\" _Archives Curieuses_, vii. 7.]\n\n[Footnote 74: Afin que ce que vous avez dresse des choses passees a la\nSaint-Barthelemy ne puisse etre publie parmi le peuple, et memement\nentre les etrangers, comme il y en a plusieurs qui se melent d'ecrire et\nqui pourraient prendre occasion d'y repondre, je vous prie qu'il n'en\nsoit rien imprime ni en francais ni en Latin, mais si vous en avez\nretenu quelque chose, le garder vers vous (Charles IX. to the President\nde Cely, March 24, 1573; _Revue Retrospective_, 2 Serie. iii. 195).]\n\n[Footnote 75: Botero, _Della Ragion di Stato_, 92. A contemporary says\nthat the Protestants were cut to pieces out of economy, \"pour afin\nd'eviter le coust des executions qu'il eust convenu payer pour les faire\npendre\"; and that this was done \"par permission divine\" (_Relation des\ntroubles de Rouen par un temoin oculaire_, ed. Pottier, 36, 46).]\n\n[Footnote 76: Del resto poco importerebbe a Roma (Card. Montalto to\nCard. Morosini; Tempesti, _Vita di Sisto V._, ii. 116).]\n\n[Footnote 77: Quand ce seroit contre touts les Catholiques, que nous ne\nnous en empescherions, ny altererions aucunement l'amitie d'entre elle\net nous (Catherine to La Mothe, Sept. 13, 1572; La Mothe, vii. 349).]\n\n[Footnote 78: Alva's Report; _Bulletins de l'Academie de Bruxelles_, ix.\n564.]\n\n[Footnote 79: Jean Diodati, _door Schotel_, 88.]\n\n[Footnote 80: _OEuvres de Brantome_, ed. Lalanne, iv. 38.]\n\n[Footnote 81: Otros que salvo el Duque de Nevers con harto vituperio\nsuyo (Cabrera de Cordova, _Felipe Segundo_, p. 722).]\n\n[Footnote 82: Il Re Christianissimo in tutti questi accidenti, in luogo\ndi giudicio e di valore ha mostrato animo christiano, con tutto habbia\nsalvato alcuno. Ma li altri principi che fanno gran professione di\nCattolici et di meritar favori e gratie del papa hanno poi con estrema\ndiligenza cercato a salvare quelli piu di Ugonotti che hanno potuto, e\nse non gli nomino particolarmente, non si maravigli, per che\nindiferentemente tutti hanno fatto a un modo (Salviati, Desp. Sept. 2,\n1572).]\n\n[Footnote 83: Estque dictu mirum, quantopere Regem exhilaravit nova\nGallica (Hopperus to Viglius, Madrid, Sept. 7, 1572; _Hopperi Epp._\n360).]\n\n[Footnote 84: Ha avuto, con questa occasione, dal Re di Spagna, sei mila\nscudi a conto della dote di sua moglie e a richiesta di casa di Guise\n(Petrucci, Desp. Sept. 16, 1572; Desjardins, iii. 838). On the 27th of\nDecember 1574, the Cardinal of Guise asks Philip for more money for the\nsame man (Bouille, _Histoire des Ducs de Guise_, ii. 505).]\n\n[Footnote 85: Siendo cosa clara que, de hoy mas, ni los protestantes de\nAlemania, ni la reyna de Inglaterra se fiaran del (Philip to Alva, Sept.\n18, 1572; _Bulletins de Bruxelles_, xvi. 255).]\n\n[Footnote 86: St. Goard to Charles IX., Sept. 12, 1572; Groen, iv. App.\n12; Raumer, _Briefe aus Paris_, i. 191.]\n\n[Footnote 87: _Archives de l'Empire_, K. 1530, B. 34, 299.]\n\n[Footnote 88: Zuniga to Alva, Aug. 31, 1572: No fue caso pensado sino\nrepentino (_Archives de l'Empire_, K. 1530, B. 34, 66).]\n\n[Footnote 89: St. Goard to Catherine, Jan. 6, 1573; Groen, iv. App. 28.]\n\n[Footnote 90: _Comment. de B. de Mendoca_, i. 344.]\n\n[Footnote 91: Alva to Philip, Oct. 13, 1572; _Corr. de Philippe II._,\nii. 287. On the 23rd of August Zuniga wrote to Philip that he hoped that\nColigny would recover from his wound, because, if he should die, Charles\nwould be able to obtain obedience from all men (_Archives de l'Empire_,\nK. 1530, B. 34, 65).]\n\n[Footnote 92: _Bulletins de la Societe pour l'Histoire du Protestantisme\nFrancais_, viii. 292.]\n\n[Footnote 93: _Eidgenoessische Abschiede_, iv. 2, 501, 503, 506, 510.]\n\n[Footnote 94: Cosmo to Camaiani, Oct. 6, 1570 (Cantu, _Gli Eretici\nd'Italia_, iii. 15); Cosmo to Charles IX., Sept. 4, 1572 (Gachard,\n_Rapport sur les Archives de Lille_, 199).]\n\n[Footnote 95: Grappin, _Memoire Historique sur le Card. de Granvelle_,\n73.]\n\n[Footnote 96: Bardi, _Eta del Mondo_, 1581, iv. 2011; Campana, _Historie\ndel Mondo_, 1599, i. 145; B.D. da Fano, _Aggiunte all' Historie di\nMambrino Roseo_, 1583, v. 252; Pellini, _Storia di Perugia_, vol. iii.\nMS.]\n\n[Footnote 97: Si e degnato di prestare alli suoi divoti il suo\ntaglientissimo coltello in cosi salutifero sacrificio (Letter of Aug.\n26; Alberi, _Vita di Caterina de' Medici_, 401).]\n\n[Footnote 98: Labitte, _Democratie chez les Predicateurs de la Ligue_,\n10.]\n\n[Footnote 99: Natalis Comes, _Historiae sui temporis_, 512.]\n\n[Footnote 100: Capefigue, iii. 150.]\n\n[Footnote 101: Pourront-ils arguer de trahison le feu roy, qu'ils\nblasphement luy donnant le nom de tyran, veu qu'il n'a rien entrepris et\nexecute que ce qu'il pouvoit faire par l'expresse parole de Dieu ...\nDieu commande qu'on ne pardonne en facon que ce soit aux inventeurs ou\nsectateurs de nouvelles opinions ou heresies.... Ce que vous estimez\ncruaute estre plutot vraye magnanimite et doulceur (Sorbin, _Le Vray\nresveille-matin des Calvinistes_, 1576, pp. 72, 74, 78).]\n\n[Footnote 102: Il commanda a chacun de se retirer au cabinet et a moy de\nm'asseoir au chevet de son lict, tant pour ouyr sa confession, et luy\ndonner ministerialement absolution de ses pechez, que aussi pour le\nconsoler durant et apres la messe (Sorbin, _Vie de Charles IX.; Archives\nCurieuses_, viii. 287). Est tres certain que le plus grand regret qu'il\navoit a l'heure de sa mort estoit de ce qu'il voyoit l'idole Calvinesque\nn'estre encores du tout chassee (_Vray resveille-matin_, 88).]\n\n[Footnote 103: The charge against the clergy of Bordeaux is brought by\nD'Aubigne (_Histoire Universelle_, ii. 27) and by De Thou. De Thou was\nvery hostile to the Jesuits, and his language is not positive. D'Aubigne\nwas a furious bigot. The truth of the charge would not be proved,\nwithout the letters of the President L'Agebaston and of the Lieutenant\nMontpezat: \"Quelques prescheurs se sont par leurs sermons (ainsi que\ndernierement j'ai escript plus amplement a votre majeste) estudie de\ntout leur pouvoir de troubler ciel et terre, et conciter le peuple a\nsedition, et en ce faisant a passer par le fil de l'espee tous ceulx de\nla pretendue religion reformee.... Apres avoir des le premier et\ndeuxieme de ceste mois fait courrir un bruit sourd que vous, Sire, aviez\nenvoye nom par nom un rolle signe de votre propre main au Sieur de\nMontferaud, pour par voie de fait et sans aultre forme de justice,\nmettre a mort quarante des principaulx de cette ville....\" (L'Agebaston\nto Charles IX., Oct. 7, 1572; Mackintosh, iii. 352). \"J'ai trouve que\nmessieurs de la cour de parlement avoyent arreste que Monsieur Edmond,\nprescheur, seroit appelle en ladicte court pour luy faire des\nremonstrances sur quelque langaige qu'il tenoit en ses sermons, tendant\na sedition, a ce qu'ils disoyent. Ce que j'ay bien voullu empescher,\ncraignant que s'il y eust este appelle cella eust anime plusieurs des\nhabitants et estre cause de quelque emotion, ce que j'eusse voluntiers\nsouffert quant j'eusse panse qu'il n'y en eust qu'une vingtaine de\ndespeches\" (Montpezat to Charles IX., Sept. 30., 1572; _Archives de la\nGironde_, viii. 337).]\n\n[Footnote 104: _Annal. Baronii Contin._ ii. 734; Bossuet says: \"La\ndispense vint telle qu'on la pouvoit desirer\" (_Histoire de France_, p.\n820).]\n\n[Footnote 105: Ormegregny, _Reflexions sur la Politique de France_, p.\n121.]\n\n[Footnote 106: De Thou, iv. 537.]\n\n[Footnote 107: Charriere, iii. 154.]\n\n[Footnote 108: _Carmina Ill. Poetarum Italorum_, iii. 212, 216.]\n\n[Footnote 109: Tiepolo, Desp. Aug. 6, 1575; Mutinelli, _Storia Arcana_,\ni. 111.]\n\n[Footnote 110: Parendomi, che sia cosa, la quale possa apportar piacere,\ne utile al mondo, si per la qualita del soggetto istesso, come anco per\nl'eleganza, e bello ordine con che viene cosi leggiadramente descritto\nquesto nobile, e glorioso fatto ... a fine che una cosi egregia attione\nnon resti defraudata dell' honor, che merita (The editor, Gianfrancesco\nFerrari, to the reader).]\n\n[Footnote 111: Huc accedit, Oratorem Sermi Regis Galliae, et impulsu\ninimicorum saepedicti Domini Cardinalis, et quia summopere illi\ndisplicuit, quod superioribus mensibus Illma Sua Dominatio operam\ndedisset, hoc sibi mandari, ut omnia Regis negotia secum communicaret,\nnullam praetermisisse occasionem ubi ei potuit adversari (Cardinal\nDelfino to the Emperor, Rome, Nov. 29, 1572; Vienna Archives).]\n\n[Footnote 112: Fa ogni favor et gratia gli addimanda il Cardinale di\nLorena, il consiglio del quale usa in tutte le piu importanti\nnegotiationi l' occorre di haver a trattar (Cusano to the Emperor, Rome,\nSept. 27, 1572).--Conscia igitur Sua Dominatio Illma quorundam\narcanorum Regni Galliae, creato Pontifice sibi in Concilio Tridentino\ncognito et amico, statuit huc se recipere, ut privatis suis rebus\nconsuleret, et quia tunc foederati contra Thurcam, propter suspicionem\nRegi Catholico injectam de Orangio, et Gallis, non admodum videbantur\nconcordes, et non multo post advenit nuncius mortis Domini de Colligni,\net illius asseclarum; Pontifex justa de causa existimavit dictum Illmum\nCardinalem favore et gratia sua merito esse complectendum. Evenit\npostmodum, ut ad Serenissimam Reginam Galliarum deferretur, bonum hunc\nDominum jactasse se, quod particeps fuerit consiliorum contra dictum\nColligni; id quod illa Serenissima Domina iniquo animo tulit, quae\nneminem gloriae socium vult habere; sibi enim totam vendicat, quod sola\ntalis facinoris auctor, et Dux extiterit. Idcirco commorationem ipsius\nLotharingiae in hac aula improbare, ac reprehendere aggressa est. Haec\ncum ille Illustrissimus Cardinalis perceperit, oblata sibi occasione\nutens, exoravit a Sua Sanctitate gratuitam expeditionem quatuor millia\nscutorum reditus pro suo Nepote, et 20 millia pro filio praeter\nsollicitationem, quam prae se fert, ut dictus Nepos in Cardinalium\nnumerum cooptetur.... Cum itaque his de causis authoritas hujus Domini\nin Gallia imminuta videatur, ipseque praevideat, quanto in Gallia\nminoris aestimabitur, tanto minori etiam loco hic se habitum id, statuit\noptimo judicio, ac pro eo quod suae existimacioni magis conducit, in\nGalliam reverti (Delfino, _ut supra_, both in the Vienna Archives).]\n\n[Footnote 113: _Intiera Relatione della Morte dell' Ammiraglio._]\n\n[Footnote 114: _Ragguaglio degli ordini et modi tenuti dalla Majesta\nChristianissima nella distruttione della setta degli Ugonotti Con la\nmorte dell' Ammiraglio_, etc.]\n\n[Footnote 115: Bib. Imp. F. Fr. 16, 139.]\n\n[Footnote 116: Maffei, _Annali di Gregorio XIII._, i. 34.]\n\n[Footnote 117: La nouvelle qui arriva le deuxieme jour du present par\nung courrier qui estoit depesche secretememt de Lyon par ung nomme\nDanes, secretaire de M. de Mandelot ... a ung commandeur de Sainct\nAnthoine, nomme Mr. de Gou, il luy manda qu'il allast advertir le Pape,\npour en avoir quelque presant ou bienfaict, de la mort de tous les chefs\nde ceulx de la religion pretendue refformee, et de tous les Huguenotz de\nFrance, et que V.M. avoit mande et commande a tous les gouverneurs de se\nsaisir de tous iceulx huguenotz en leurs gouvernemens; ceste nouvelle,\nSire, apporta si grand contentement a S.S., que sans ce que je luy\nremonstray lors me trouvant sur le lieu, en presence de Monseigneur le\nC1 de Lorraine, qu'elle devoit attendre ce que V.M. m'en manderoit et\nce que son nonce luy en escriroit, elle en vouloit incontinent faire des\nfeux de joye.... Et pour ce que je ne voulois faire ledict feu de joye\nla premiere nuict que ledit courrier envoye par ledict Danes feust\narrive, ny en recevoir les congratulations que l'on m'en envoyoit faire,\nque premierement je n'eusse eu nouvelles de V.M. pour scavoir et sa\nvoulante et comme je m'avoys a conduire, aucuns commencoient desja de\nm'en regarder de maulvais oeills (Ferralz to Charles IX., Rome, Sept.\n11, 1572; Bib. Imp. F. Fr. 16,040). Al corriero che porto tal nuova\nNostro Signore diede 100 Scudi oltre li 200 che hebbe dall'\nIllustrissimo Lorena, che con grandissima allegrezza se n'ando subito a\ndar tal nuova per allegrarsene con Sua Santita (Letter from Rome to the\nEmperor, Sept. 6, 1572; Vienna Archives).]\n\n[Footnote 118: Charles IX. to Ferralz, Aug. 24, 1572; Mackintosh, iii.\n348.]\n\n[Footnote 119: Elle fust merveilheusement ayse d'entendre le discours\nque mondit neueu de Beauville luy en feist. Lequel, apres luy avoir\nconte le susdit affayre, supplia sadicte Sainctete, suyvant la charge\nexpresse qu'il avoit de V.M. de vouloir conceder, pour le fruict de\nceste allegresse, la dispense du mariage du roy et royne de Navarre,\ndatee de quelques jours avant que les nopces en feussent faictes,\nensemble l'absolution pour Messeigneurs les Cardinaux de Bourbon et de\nRamboilhet, et pour tous les aultres evesques et prelatz qui y avoient\nassiste.... Il nous feit pour fin response qu'il y adviseroit (Ferralz,\n_ut supra_).]\n\n[Footnote 120: Pensasi che per tutte le citta di Francia debba seguire\nil simile, subitoche arrivi la nuova dell' esecutione di Parigi.... A\nN.S. mi faccia gratia di basciar i piedi in nome mio, col quale mi\nrallegro con le viscere del cuore che sia piaciuto alla Dio. Mta. d'\nincaminar nel principio del suo pontificato si felicemente e\nhonoratamente le cose di questo regno, havendo talmente havuto in\nprotettione il Re e Regina Madre che hanno saputo e potuto sbarrare\nqueste pestifere radici con tanta prudenza, in tempo tanto opportuno,\nche tutti lor ribelli erano sotto chiave in gabbia (Salviati, Desp. Aug.\n24; Theiner, i. 329; Mackintosh, iii. 355).]\n\n[Footnote 121: Sexta Septembris, mane, in Senatu Pontificis et\nCardinalium lectae sunt literae a legato Pontificio e Gallia scriptae,\nadmiralium et Huguenotos, destinata Regis voluntate atque consensu,\ntrucidatos esse. Ea re in eodem Senatu decretum esse, ut inde recta\nPontifex cum Cardinalibus in aedem D. Marci concederet, Deoque Opt. Max.\npro tanto beneficio Sedi Romanae orbique Christiano collato gratias\nsolemni more ageret (_Scriptum Roma missum_ in Capilupi, 1574, p. 84).\nQuia Die 2a praedicti mensis Septembris Smus D.N. certior factus\nfuerat Colignium Franciae Ammiralium a populo Parisien occisum fuisse et\ncum eo multos ex Ducibus et primoribus Ugonotarum haereticorum eius\nsequacibus Rege ipso Franciae approbante, ex quo spes erat\ntranquillitatem in dicto Regno redituram expulsis haereticis, idcirco\nStas Sua expleto concistorio descendit ad ecclesiam Sancti Marci,\npraecedente cruce et sequentibus Cardinalibus et genuflexus ante altare\nmaius, ubi positum fuerat sanctissimum Sacramentum, oravit gratias Deo\nagens, et inchoavit cantando hymnum Te Deum (_Fr. Mucantii Diaria_, B.M.\nAdd. MSS. 26,811).]\n\n[Footnote 122: Apres quelques autres discours qu'il me feist sur le\ncontentement que luy et le college des Cardinaux avoient receu de\nladicte execution faicte et des nouvelles qui journellement arrivoient\nen ceste court de semblables executions que l'on a faicte et font encore\nen plusieurs villes de vostre royaume, qui, a dire la verite, sont les\nnouvelles les plus agreables que je pense qu'on eust sceu apporter en\nceste ville, sadicte Sainctete pour fin me commanda de vous escrire que\ncest evenement luy a este cent fois plus agreable que cinquante\nvictoires semblables a celle que ceulx de la ligue obtindrent l'annee\npassee contre le Turcq, ne voulant oublier vous dire, Sire, les\ncommandemens estroictz qu'il nous feist a tous, mesmement aux francois\nd'en faire feu de joye, et qui ne l'eust faict eust mal senty de la foy\n(Ferralz, _ut supra_).]\n\n[Footnote 123: Tutta Roma sta in allegria di tal fatto et fra i piu\ngrandi si dice, che 'l Re di Francia ha insegnato alli Principi\nchristiani ch' hanno de simili vassalli ne stati loro a liberarsene, et\ndicono che vostra Maesta Cesara dovrebbe castigare il conte Palatino\ntanto nemico della Serenissima casa d' Austria, et della Religione\ncattolica, come l'anni passati fece contra il Duca di Sassonia tiene\ntuttavia prigione, che a un tempo vendicarebbe le tante ingiurie ha\nfatto detto Palatino alla Chiesa di Dio, et poveri Christiani, et alla\nMaesta Vostra et sua Casa Serenissima sprezzando li suoi editti et\ncommandamenti, et privarlo dell' elettione dell'Imperio et darlo al Duca\ndi Baviera (Cusano to the Emperor, Rome, Sept. 6, 1572; Vienna\nArchives).]\n\n[Footnote 124: The Bull, as published in Paris, is printed by Strype\n(_Life of Parker_, iii. 197). La prima occasione che a cio lo mosse fu\nper lo stratagemma fatto da Carlo Nono Christianissimo Re di Francia\ncontra Coligno Ammiraglio, capo d' Ugonotti, et suoi seguaci, tagliati a\npezzi in Parigi (Ciappi, _Vita di Gregorio XIII._, 1596, p. 63).]\n\n[Footnote 125: Vasari to Borghini, Oct. 5, 1572; March 5, 1573; to\nFrancesco Medici, Nov. 17, 1572; Gaye, _Carteggio d' Artisti_, iii. 328,\n366, 341.]\n\n[Footnote 126: Indubitatamente non si osservara interamente, havendomi\nin questo modo, punto che torno dall' audienza promesso il Re,\nimponendomi di darne conto in suo nome a Nostro Signore, di volere in\nbreve tempo liberare il Regno dalli Ugonotti.... Mi ha parlato della\ndispensa, escusandosi non haver fatto il Parentado per ultro, che per\nliberarsi da suoi inimici (Salviati, Desp. Sept. 3, Sept. 2, Oct. 11,\n1572).]\n\n[Footnote 127: Si vede che l' editto non essendo osservato ne da popoli,\nne dal principe, non e per pigliar piede (Salviati, Desp. Sept. 4). Qual\nRegina in progresso di tempo intende pur non solo di revocare tal\neditto, ma per mezzo della giustitia di restituir la fede cattolica\nnell' antica osservanza, parendogli che nessuno ne debba dubitare\nadesso, che hanno fatto morire l' ammiraglio con tanti altri huomini di\nvalore, conforme ai raggionamenti altre volte havuti con esso meco\nessendo a Bles, et trattando del parentado di Navarra, et dell' altre\ncose che correvano in quei tempi, il che essendo vero, ne posso rendere\ntestimonianza, e a Nostro Signore e a tutto il mondo (Aug. 27; Theiner,\ni. 329, 330).]\n\n[Footnote 128: Desp. Sept. 2, 1572.]\n\n[Footnote 129: The reply of Boccapaduli is printed in French, with the\ntranslation of the oration of Muretus, Paris, 1573.]\n\n[Footnote 130: Trovera le cose cosi ben disposte, che durara poca\nfattica in ottener quel tanto si desidera per Sua Beatitudine, anzi\nhavera piu presto da ringratiar quella Maesta Christianissima di cosi\nbuona et sant' opera, ha fatto far, che da durare molta fatica in\npersuaderli l' unione con la Santa Chiesa Romana (Cusano to the Emperor,\nRome, Sept. 6). Sereno (_Comment. della guerra di Cipro_, p. 329)\nunderstands the mission in the same light.]\n\n[Footnote 131: Omnes mulas ascendentes cappis et galeris pontificalibus\ninduti associarunt Rmum D. Cardinalem Ursinum Legatum usque ad portam\nFlaminiam et extra eam ubi factis multis reverentiis eum ibi\nreliquerunt, juxta ritum antiquum in ceremoniali libro descriptum qui\nlongo tempore intermissus fuerat, ita Pontifice iubente in Concistorio\nhodierno (_Mucantii Diaria_). Ista associatio fuit determinata in\nConcistorio vocatis X. Cardinalibus et ex improviso exequuti fuimus (_C.\nFirmani Diaria_, B.M. Add. MSS. 8448).]\n\n[Footnote 132: Mette in consideratione alla Santita Sua che havendo\ndeputato un Legato apostolico su la morte dell' ammiraglio, et altri\ncapi Ugonotti, ha fatti ammazzare a Parigi, saria per metterla in molto\nsospetto et diffidenza delli Principi Protestanti, et della Regina d'\nInghilterra, ch' ella fosse d' accordo con la sede Apostolica, et\nPrincipi Cattolici per farli guerra, i quali cerca d' acquettar con\naccertarli tutti, che non ha fatto ammazzar l' ammiraglio et suoi\nseguaci per conto della Religione (Cusano to the Emperor, Sept. 27).]\n\n[Footnote 133: Salviati, Desp. Sept. 22, 1572.]\n\n[Footnote 134: Charles IX. to S. Goard, Oct. 5, 1572; Charriere, iii.\n330. Ne poteva esser bastante segno l' haver egli doppo la morte dell'\nAmmiraglio fatto un editto, che in tutti i luoghi del suo regno fossero\nposti a fil di spada quanti heretici vi si trovassero, onde in pochi\ngiorni n' erano stati ammazzati settanta milla e d' avantaggio\n(Cicarelli, _Vita di Gregori XIII._; Platina, _Vite de' Pontefici_,\n1715, 592).]\n\n[Footnote 135: Il tengono quasiche in filo et il necessitano a far cose\ncontra la sua natura e la sua volonta perche S. Sta e sempre stato di\nnatura piacevole e dolce (_Relatione di Gregorio XIII._; Ranke,\n_Paepste_, App. 80). Faict Cardinal par le pape Pie IV., le 12e de Mars\n1559, lequel en le creant, dit qu'il n'avoit cree un cardinal ains un\npape (Ferralz to Charles IX., May 14, 1572).]\n\n[Footnote 136: Smus Dominus Noster dixit nullam concordiam vel pacem\ndebere nec posse esse inter nos et hereticos, et cum eis nullum foedus\nineundum et habendum ... verissimum est deteriores esse haereticos\ngentilibus, eo quod sunt adeo perversi et obstinati, ut propemodum\ninfideles sint (_Acta Concistoralia_, June 18, 1571; Bib. Imp. F. Lat.\n12, 561).]\n\n[Footnote 137: Ogni giorno faceva impiccare e squartare ora uno, ora un\naltro (Cantu, ii. 410).]\n\n[Footnote 138: _Legazioni di Serristori_, 436, 443.]\n\n[Footnote 139: Elle desire infiniment que vostre Majeste face quelque\nressentement plus qu'elle n'a faict jusques a ceste heure contre ceux\nqui lui font la guerre, comme de raser quelques-unes de leurs\nprincipales maisons pour une perpetuelle memoyre (Rambouillet to Charles\nIX., Rome, Jan. 17, 1569; Bib. Imp. F. Fr. 17,989).]\n\n[Footnote 140: Pius V. to Catherine, April 13, 1569.]\n\n[Footnote 141: Pius V. to Charles IX., March 28, 1569.]\n\n[Footnote 142: Sa Sainctete m'a dict que j'escrive a vostre majeste que\nicelle se souvienne qu'elle combat pour la querelle de Dieu, et que\nceste a elle de faire ses vengeances (Rambouillet to Charles IX., Rome,\nMarch 14, 1569; Bib. Imp. F. Fr. 16,039). Nihil est enim ea pietate\nmisericordiaque crudelius, quae in impios et ultima supplicia meritos\nconfertur (Pius V. to Charles IX., Oct. 20, 1569).]\n\n[Footnote 143: _Correspondance de Philippe II._, ii. 185.]\n\n[Footnote 144: Inspirato piu d' un anno fa di esporre la vita al\nmartirio col procurare la liberatione della religione, et delle patria\nper mezzo della morte del tiranno, et assicurato da Theologi che il\nfatto saria stato meritorio, non ne haveva con tutto cio mai potuto\nottenere da superiori suoi la licenza o dispensa.... Io quantunque mi\nsia parso di trovarlo pieno di tale humilta, prudenza, spirito et core\nche arguiscono che questa sia inspiratione veramente piuttosto che\ntemerita o legerezza, non cognoscendo tuttavia di potergliela concedere\nl' ho persuaso a tornarsene nel suo covento raccommandarsi a Dio et\nattendere all' obbedienza delli suoi superiori finche io attendessi\ndallo assenso o ripulsa del Papa che haverei interpellato per la sua\nsanta beneditione, se questo spirito sia veramente da Dio donde si potra\nconjetturare che sia venendo approvato da Sua Sta, e percio sara piu\nsicuro da essere eseguito.... Resta hora che V.S. Illma mi favorisca di\ncommunicare a S.B. il caso, et scrivermene come la supplico quanto prima\nper duplicate et triplicate lettere la sua santa determinatione\nassicurandosi che per quanto sara in me il negotio sara trattato con la\ndebita circumspetione (Sega, Desp. Paris, Jan. 23, 1591; deciphered in\nRome, March 26).]\n\n[Footnote 145: Ferralz to Charles IX., Nov. 18, Dec. 23, 1572.]\n\n[Footnote 146: De Castro, _De Justa Haeret. Punitione_, 1547, p. 119.\nIure Divino obligantur eos extirpare, si absque maiori incommodo possint\n(Lancelottus, _Haereticum quare per Catholicum quia_, 1615, p. 579). Ubi\nquid indulgendum sit, ratio semper exacta habeatur, an Religioni\nEcclesiae, et Reipublicae quid vice mutua accedat quod majoris sit\nmomenti, et plus prodesse possit (Pamelius, _De Relig. diversis non\nadmittendis_, 1589, p. 159). Contagium istud sic grassatum est, ut\ncorrupta massa non ferat antiquissimas leges, severitasque tantisper\nremittenda sit (Possevinus, _Animadv. in Thuanum_; Zachariae, _Iter\nLitterarium_, p. 321).]\n\n[Footnote 147: Principi saeculari nulla ratione permissum est,\nhaereticis licentiam tribuere haereses suas docendi, atque adeo\ncontractus ille iniustus.... Si quid Princeps saecularis attentet in\npraeiudicium Ecclesiasticae potestatis, aut contra eam aliquid statuat\net paciscatur, pactum illud nullum futurum (R. Sweertii, _De Fide\nHaereticis servanda_, 1611, p. 36).]\n\n[Footnote 148: Ad poenam quoque pertinet et odium haereticorum quod\nfides illis data servanda non sit (Simancha, _Inst. Cath._ pp. 46, 52).]\n\n[Footnote 149: Si nolint converti, expedit eos citius tollere e medio,\nne gravius postea damnentur, unde non militat contra mansuetudinem\nchristianam, occidere Haereticos, quin potius est opus maximae\nmisericordiae (Lancelottus, p. 579).]\n\n[Footnote 150: De Rozoy, _Annales de Toulouse_, iii. 65.]\n\n[Footnote 151: Alva to Philip, June 5, 1565; _Pap. de Granvelle_, ix.\n288; _Comment. de Monluc_, iii. 425.]\n\n[Footnote 152: Charles IX. to Mondoucet, Aug. 31, 1572; _Compte Rendu_,\niv, 349.]\n\n[Footnote 153: _Bulletins de Bruxelles_, xvi. 256.]\n\n[Footnote 154: Granvelle to Morillon, Sept. 11, 1572; Michelet, p. 475.]\n\n[Footnote 155: Floquet, iii. 137.]\n\n[Footnote 156: Walsingham to Smith, Nov. 1, 1572; Digges, p. 279. Ita\nenim statutum ab illis fuit die 27 Octobris (Beza, Dec. 3, 1572; _Ill.\nvir. Epp. Sel._ 621). La Mothe, v. 164; Faustino Tasso, _Historie de\nnostri tempi_, 1583, p. 343.]\n\n[Footnote 157: _Discorso di Monsignor Terracina a Gregorio XIII.;\nThesauri Politici Contin._ 1618, pp. 73-76.]\n\n[Footnote 158: Infin che ne vivera grande, o picciolo di loro, mai non\nle mancheranno insidie (_Lettere del Muzio_, 1590, p. 232).]\n\n[Footnote 159: Coupez, tronquez, cisaillez, ne pardonnez a parens ny\namis, princes et subiets, ny a quelque personne de quelque condition\nqu'ils soient (D'Orleans, _Premier advertissement des Catholiques\nAnglois aux Francois Catholiques_, 1590, p. 13). The notion that Charles\nhad displayed an extreme benignity recurs in many books: \"Nostre Prince\na surpasse tout mesure de clemence\" (Le Frere de Laval _Histoire des\nTroubles_, 1576, p. 527).]\n\n[Footnote 160: Serranus, _Comment._ iv. 51.]\n\n[Footnote 161: Bouges, _Histoire de Carcassonne_, p. 343.]\n\n[Footnote 162: _Sommaire de la Felonie commise a Lyon._ A contemporary\ntract reprinted by Gonon, 1848, p. 221.]\n\n[Footnote 163: On this point Smith may be trusted rather than Parker\n(_Correspondence_, p. 399).]\n\n[Footnote 164: _Bulletins de Bruxelles_, xvi. 249.]\n\n[Footnote 165: Qui e venuto quello che dette l' archibusata all'\nammiraglio di Francia, et e stato condotto dal Cardinal di Lorena et\ndall' Ambasciator di Francia, al papa. A molti non e piaciuto che costui\nsia venuto in Roma (Prospero Count Arco to the Emperor, Rome, Nov. 15,\n1572; Vienna Archives).]\n\n[Footnote 166: Zuniga to Philip, March 4, 1573; _Arch. de l'Empire_, K.\n1531, B. 35, 70. Zuniga heard it from Lorraine.]\n\n[Footnote 167: Et est toute la dispute encores sur les derniers\nevenemens de la France, contre lesquels l'Electeur est beaucoup plus\naigre qu'il n'estoyt a mon aultre voyage, depuys qu'il a este en\nl'escole a Vienne (Schomberg to Brulart, May 12, 1573; Groen, iv. App.\n76).]\n\n[Footnote 168: Sattler, _Geschichte von Wuertemberg_, v. 23.]\n\n[Footnote 169: Audio quosdam etiam nostralium theologorum cruentam istam\nnuptiarum feralium celebrationem pertinaciae Gallorum in semel recepta\nde sacramentalibus mysteriis sententia acceptam referre et praeter illos\npati neminem somniare (Steinberger to Crato, Nov. 23, 1572; Gillet,\n_Craio von Crafftheim_, ii. 519).]\n\n[Footnote 170: Heppe, _Geschichte des deutschen Protestantismus_, iv.\n37, 47, 49.]\n\n[Footnote 171: Hachfeld, _Martin Chemnitz_, p. 137.]\n\n[Footnote 172: Sunt tamen qui hoc factum et excusare et defendere\ntentant (Bullinger to Hotoman, Oct. 11, 1572; Hotoman, _Epis._ 35).]\n\n[Footnote 173: Nec dubium est melius cum ipsis actum fuisse, si\nquemadmodum a principio instituerant, cum disciplinam ecclesiasticam\ninroduxere, viros modestos et piae veraeque reformationis cupidos tantum\nin suos coetus admisissent, reiectis petulantibus et fervidis ingeniis,\nquae eos in diros tumultus, et inextricabilia mala coniecerunt\n(Dinothus, _De Bello Civili_, 1582, p. 243).]\n\n[Footnote 174: Beza to Tilius, July 5, 1572; _Ill. vir. Epp. Sel._ 607.]\n\n[Footnote 175: Quoties autem ego haec ipse praedixi! quoties praemonui!\nSed sic Deo visum est, iustissimis de causis irato, et tamen servatori\n(Beza to Tilius, Sept. 10, 1572, 614). Nihil istorum non iustissimo\niudicio accidere necesse est fateri, qui Galliarum statum norunt (Beza\nto Crato, Aug. 26. 1573; Gillet, ii. 521).]\n\n[Footnote 176: Ut mihi quidem magis absurde facere videantur quam si\nsacrilegas parricidas puniendos negarent, quum sint istis omnibus\nhaeretici infinitis partibus deteriores.... In nullos unquam homines\nseverius quam in haereticos, blasphemos et impios debet animadvertere\n(_De Haereticis puniendis_, Tract. Theol. i. 143, 152).]\n\n[Footnote 177: _Epist. Theolog._ 1575, p. 338.]\n\n[Footnote 178: Beza to Wittgenstein, Pentecost, 1583; Friedlaender, 143.]\n\n[Footnote 179: Lobo de Silveis to De Thou, July 7, 1616; _Histoire_, xv.\n371; J.B. Gallus, _Ibid._ p. 435.]\n\n[Footnote 180: Le Cardinal Barberini, que je tiens pour Serviteur du\nRoy, a parle franchement sur ceste affaire, et m'a dit qu'il croyoit\npresqu'impossible qu'il se trouve jamais remede, si vous ne la voulez\nrecommencer; disant que depuis le commencement jusqu'a la fin vous vous\nestes monstre du tout passionne contre ce qui est de l'honneur et de la\ngrandeur de l'Eglise, qu'il se trouvera dans vostre histoire que vous ne\nparlez jamais des Catholiques qu'avec du mepris et de la louange de ceux\nde la religion; que mesme vous avez blasme ce que feu Monsieur le\npresident de Thou vostre pere avoit approuve, qui est la S. Barthelemy\n(De Breves to De Thou, Rome, Feb. 18, 1610; Bib. Imp. F. Dupuy, 812).]\n\n[Footnote 181: Crudelitatisne tu esse ac non clementiae potius,\npietatisque putas? (_Resp. ad Ep. Casauboni_, 1612, p. 118).]\n\n[Footnote 182: Quae res uti Catholicae Religioni sublevandae opportuna,\nita maxime jucunda Gregorio accidit (_Hist. Pontif. Gregori XIII._, p.\n30).]\n\n[Footnote 183: _Histoire d'Orleans_, pp. 421, 424.]\n\n[Footnote 184: Germain to Bretagne, Rome, Dec. 24, 1685; Valery,\n_Corresp. de Mabillon_, i. 192.]\n\n[Footnote 185: Du Molinet, _Hist. S. Pont. per Numismata_, 1679, 93;\nBuorranni, _Numismata Pontificum_, i. 336.]\n\n[Footnote 186: _Annali d'Italia_ ad ann. 1572.]\n\n[Footnote 187: Si huviera respirado mas tiempo, huviera dado a entender\nal mundo, que avia Rey en la Francia, y Dios en Israel (_Vida de S.\nFrancisco De Borja_, 446).]\n\n[Footnote 188: _Vita di Sisto V._, i. 119.]\n\n[Footnote 189: Quo demum res evaderent, si Regibus non esset integrum,\nin rebelles, subditos, quietisque publicae turbatores animadvertere?\n(_Apparatus Eruditionis_, vii. 503; Piatti, _Storia de' Pontefici XI._,\np. 271).]\n\n[Footnote 190: Per le notizie che ricevette della cessata strage\n(Moroni, _Dizionario di Erudizione Ecclesiastica_, xxxii. 298).]\n\n[Footnote 191: [1868.]]\n\n[Footnote 192: _Kirchengeschichte_, iii. 211.]\n\n\n\n\nV\n\nTHE PROTESTANT THEORY OF PERSECUTION[193]\n\n\nThe manner in which Religion influences State policy is more easily\nascertained in the case of Protestantism than in that of the Catholic\nChurch: for whilst the expression of Catholic doctrines is authoritative\nand unvarying, the great social problems did not all arise at once, and\nhave at various times received different solutions. The reformers failed\nto construct a complete and harmonious code of doctrine; but they were\ncompelled to supplement the new theology by a body of new rules for the\nguidance of their followers in those innumerable questions with regard\nto which the practice of the Church had grown out of the experience of\nages. And although the dogmatic system of Protestantism was not\ncompleted in their time, yet the Protestant spirit animated them in\ngreater purity and force than it did any later generation. Now, when a\nreligion is applied to the social and political sphere, its general\nspirit must be considered, rather than its particular precepts. So that\nin studying the points of this application in the case of Protestantism,\nwe may consult the writings of the reformers with greater confidence\nthan we could do for an exposition of Protestant theology; and accept\nthem as a greater authority, because they agree more entirely among\nthemselves. We can be more sure that we have the true Protestant opinion\nin a political or social question on which all the reformers are agreed,\nthan in a theological question on which they differ; for the concurrent\nopinion must be founded on an element common to all, and therefore\nessential. If it should further appear that this opinion was injurious\nto their actual interests, and maintained at a sacrifice to themselves,\nwe should then have an additional security for its necessary connection\nwith their fundamental views.\n\nThe most important example of this law is the Protestant theory of\ntoleration. The views of the reformers on religious liberty are not\nfragmentary, accidental opinions, unconnected with their doctrines, or\nsuggested by the circumstances amidst which they lived; but the product\nof their theological system, and of their ideas of political and\necclesiastical government. Civil and religious liberty are so commonly\nassociated in people's mouths, and are so rare in fact, that their\ndefinition is evidently as little understood as the principle of their\nconnection. The point at which they unite, the common root from which\nthey derive their sustenance, is the right of self-government. The\nmodern theory, which has swept away every authority except that of the\nState, and has made the sovereign power irresistible by multiplying\nthose who share it, is the enemy of that common freedom in which\nreligious freedom is included. It condemns, as a State within the State,\nevery inner group and community, class or corporation, administering its\nown affairs; and, by proclaiming the abolition of privileges, it\nemancipates the subjects of every such authority in order to transfer\nthem exclusively to its own. It recognises liberty only in the\nindividual, because it is only in the individual that liberty can be\nseparated from authority, and the right of conditional obedience\ndeprived of the security of a limited command. Under its sway,\ntherefore, every man may profess his own religion more or less freely;\nbut his religion is not free to administer its own laws. In other words,\nreligious profession is free, but Church government is controlled. And\nwhere ecclesiastical authority is restricted, religious liberty is\nvirtually denied.\n\nFor religious liberty is not the negative right of being without any\nparticular religion, just as self-government is not anarchy. It is the\nright of religious communities to the practice of their own duties, the\nenjoyment of their own constitution, and the protection of the law,\nwhich equally secures to all the possession of their own independence.\nFar from implying a general toleration, it is best secured by a limited\none. In an indifferent State, that is, in a State without any definite\nreligious character (if such a thing is conceivable), no ecclesiastical\nauthority could exist. A hierarchical organisation would not be\ntolerated by the sects that have none, or by the enemies of all definite\nreligion; for it would be in contradiction to the prevailing theory of\natomic freedom. Nor can a religion be free when it is alone, unless it\nmakes the State subject to it. For governments restrict the liberty of\nthe favoured Church, by way of remunerating themselves for their service\nin preserving her unity. The most violent and prolonged conflicts for\nreligious freedom occurred in the Middle Ages between a Church which was\nnot threatened by rivals and States which were most attentive to\npreserve her exclusive predominance. Frederic II., the most tyrannical\noppressor of the Church among the German emperors, was the author of\nthose sanguinary laws against heresy which prevailed so long in many\nparts of Europe. The Inquisition, which upheld the religious unity of\nthe Spanish nation, imposed the severest restrictions on the Spanish\nChurch; and in England conformity has been most rigorously exacted by\nthose sovereigns who have most completely tyrannised over the\nEstablished Church. Religious liberty, therefore, is possible only where\nthe co-existence of different religions is admitted, with an equal right\nto govern themselves according to their own several principles.\nTolerance of error is requisite for freedom; but freedom will be most\ncomplete where there is no actual diversity to be resisted, and no\ntheoretical unity to be maintained, but where unity exists as the\ntriumph of truth, not of force, through the victory of the Church, not\nthrough the enactment of the State.\n\nThis freedom is attainable only in communities where rights are sacred,\nand where law is supreme. If the first duty is held to be obedience to\nauthority and the preservation of order, as in the case of aristocracies\nand monarchies of the patriarchal type, there is no safety for the\nliberties either of individuals or of religion. Where the highest\nconsideration is the public good and the popular will, as in\ndemocracies, and in constitutional monarchies after the French pattern,\nmajority takes the place of authority; an irresistible power is\nsubstituted for an idolatrous principle, and all private rights are\nequally insecure. The true theory of freedom excludes all absolute power\nand arbitrary action, and requires that a tyrannical or revolutionary\ngovernment shall be coerced by the people; but it teaches that\ninsurrection is criminal, except as a corrective of revolution and\ntyranny. In order to understand the views of the Protestant reformers on\ntoleration, they must be considered with reference to these points.\n\nWhile the Reformation was an act of individual resistance and not a\nsystem, and when the secular Powers were engaged in supporting the\nauthority of the Church, the authors of the movement were compelled to\nclaim impunity for their opinions, and they held language regarding the\nright of governments to interfere with religious belief which resembles\nthat of friends of toleration. Every religious party, however exclusive\nor servile its theory may be, if it is in contradiction with a system\ngenerally accepted and protected by law, must necessarily, at its first\nappearance, assume the protection of the idea that the conscience is\nfree.[194] Before a new authority can be set up in the place of one that\nexists, there is an interval when the right of dissent must be\nproclaimed. At the beginning of Luther's contest with the Holy See\nthere was no rival authority for him to appeal to. No ecclesiastical\norganism existed, the civil power was not on his side, and not even a\ndefinite system had yet been evolved by controversy out of his original\ndoctrine of justification. His first efforts were acts of hostility, his\nexhortations were entirely aggressive, and his appeal was to the masses.\nWhen the prohibition of his New Testament confirmed him in the belief\nthat no favour was to be expected from the princes, he published his\nbook on the Civil Power, which he judged superior to everything that had\nbeen written on government since the days of the Apostles, and in which\nhe asserts that authority is given to the State only against the wicked,\nand that it cannot coerce the godly. \"Princes,\" he says, \"are not to be\nobeyed when they command submission to superstitious errors, but their\naid is not to be invoked in support of the Word of God.\"[195] Heretics\nmust be converted by the Scriptures, and not by fire, otherwise the\nhangman would be the greatest doctor.[196] At the time when this was\nwritten Luther was expecting the bull of excommunication and the ban of\nthe empire, and for several years it appeared doubtful whether he would\nescape the treatment he condemned. He lived in constant fear of\nassassination, and his friends amused themselves with his terrors. At\none time he believed that a Jew had been hired by the Polish bishops to\ndespatch him; that an invisible physician was on his way to Wittenberg\nto murder him; that the pulpit from which he preached was impregnated\nwith a subtle poison.[197] These alarms dictated his language during\nthose early years. It was not the true expression of his views, which he\nwas not yet strong enough openly to put forth.[198]\n\nThe Zwinglian schism, the rise of the Anabaptists, and the Peasants' War\naltered the aspect of affairs. Luther recognised in them the fruits of\nhis theory of the right of private judgment and of dissent,[199] and the\nmoment had arrived to secure his Church against the application of the\nsame dissolving principles which had served him to break off from his\nallegiance to Rome.[200] The excesses of the social war threatened to\ndeprive the movement of the sympathy of the higher classes, especially\nof the governments; and with the defeat of the peasants the popular\nphase of the Reformation came to an end on the Continent. \"The devil,\"\nLuther said, \"having failed to put him down by the help of the Pope, was\nseeking his destruction through the preachers of treason and\nblood.\"[201] He instantly turned from the people to the princes;[202]\nimpressed on his party that character of political dependence, and that\nhabit of passive obedience to the State, which it has ever since\nretained, and gave it a stability it could never otherwise have\nacquired. In thus taking refuge in the arms of the civil power,\npurchasing the safety of his doctrine by the sacrifice of its freedom,\nand conferring on the State, together with the right of control, the\nduty of imposing it at the point of the sword, Luther in reality\nreverted to his original teaching.[203] The notion of liberty, whether\ncivil or religious, was hateful to his despotic nature, and contrary to\nhis interpretation of Scripture. As early as 1519 he had said that even\nthe Turk was to be reverenced as an authority.[204] The demoralising\nservitude and lawless oppression which the peasants endured, gave them,\nin his eyes, no right to relief; and when they rushed to arms, invoking\nhis name as their deliverer, he exhorted the nobles to take a merciless\nrevenge.[205] Their crime was, that they were animated by the sectarian\nspirit, which it was the most important interest of Luther to suppress.\n\nThe Protestant authorities throughout Southern Germany were perplexed by\ntheir victory over the Anabaptists. It was not easy to show that their\npolitical tenets were revolutionary, and the only subversive portion of\ntheir doctrine was that they held, with the Catholics, that the State is\nnot responsible for religion.[206] They were punished, therefore,\nbecause they taught that no man ought to suffer for his faith. At\nNuremberg the magistrates did not know how to proceed against them. They\nseemed no worse than the Catholics, whom there was no question at that\ntime of exterminating. The celebrated Osiander deemed these scruples\ninconsistent. The Papists, he said, ought also to be suppressed; and so\nlong as this was not done, it was impossible to proceed to extremities\nagainst the Anabaptists, who were no worse than they. Luther also was\nconsulted, and he decided that they ought not to be punished unless they\nrefused to conform at the command of the Government.[207] The Margrave\nof Brandenburg was also advised by the divines that a heretic who could\nnot be converted out of Scripture might be condemned; but that in his\nsentence nothing should be said about heresy, but only about sedition\nand murderous intent, though he should be guiltless of these.[208] With\nthe aid of this artifice great numbers were put to death.\n\nLuther's proud and ardent spirit despised such pretences. He had cast\noff all reserve, and spoke his mind openly on the rights and duties of\nthe State towards the Church and the people. His first step was to\nproclaim it the office of the civil power to prevent abominations.[209]\nHe provided no security that, in discharging this duty, the sovereign\nshould be guided by the advice of orthodox divines;[210] but he held the\nduty itself to be imperative. In obedience to the fundamental principle,\nthat the Bible is the sole guide in all things, he defined the office\nand justified it by scriptural precedents. The Mosaic code, he argued,\nawarded to false prophets the punishment of death, and the majesty of\nGod is not to be less deeply reverenced or less rigorously vindicated\nunder the New Testament than under the Old; in a more perfect revelation\nthe obligation is stronger. Those who will not hear the Church must be\nexcluded from the communion; but the civil power is to intervene when\nthe ecclesiastical excommunication has been pronounced, and men must be\ncompelled to come in. For, according to the more accurate definition of\nthe Church which is given in the Confession of Schmalkald, and in the\nApology of the Confession of Augsburg, excommunication involves\ndamnation. There is no salvation to be hoped for out of the Church, and\nthe test of orthodoxy against the Pope, the devil, and all the world, is\nthe dogma of justification by faith.[211]\n\nThe defence of religion became, on this theory, not only the duty of the\ncivil power, but the object of its institution. Its business was solely\nthe coercion of those who were out of the Church. The faithful could not\nbe the objects of its action; they did of their own accord more than any\nlaws required. \"A good tree,\" says Luther, \"brings forth good fruit by\nnature, without compulsion; is it not madness to prescribe laws to an\napple-tree that it shall bear apples and not thorns?\"[212] This view\nnaturally proceeded from the axiom of the certainty of the salvation of\nall who believe in the Confession of Augsburg.[213] It is the most\nimportant element in Luther's political system, because, while it made\nall Protestant governments despotic, it led to the rejection of the\nauthority of Catholic governments. This is the point where Protestant\nand Catholic intolerance meet. If the State were instituted to promote\nthe faith, no obedience could be due to a State of a different faith.\nProtestants could not conscientiously be faithful subjects of Catholic\nPowers, and they could not therefore be tolerated. Misbelievers would\nhave no rights under an orthodox State, and a misbelieving prince would\nhave no authority over orthodox subjects. The more, therefore, Luther\nexpounded the guilt of resistance and the Divine sanction of authority,\nthe more subversive his influence became in Catholic countries. His\nsystem was alike revolutionary, whether he defied the Catholic powers or\npromoted a Protestant tyranny. He had no notion of political right. He\nfound no authority for such a claim in the New Testament, and he held\nthat righteousness does not need to exhibit itself in works.\n\nIt was the same helpless dependence on the letter of Scripture which led\nthe reformers to consequences more subversive of Christian morality than\ntheir views on questions of polity. When Carlstadt cited the Mosaic law\nin defence of polygamy, Luther was indignant. If the Mosaic law is to\ngovern everything, he said, we should be compelled to adopt\ncircumcision.[214] Nevertheless, as there is no prohibition of polygamy\nin the New Testament, the reformers were unable to condemn it. They did\nnot forbid it as a matter of Divine law, and referred it entirely to the\ndecision of the civil legislator.[215] This, accordingly was the view\nwhich guided Luther and Melanchthon in treating the problem, the\nultimate solution of which was the separation of England from the\nChurch.[216] When the Landgrave Philip afterwards appealed to this\nopinion, and to the earlier commentaries of Luther, the reformers were\ncompelled to approve his having two wives. Melanchthon was a witness at\nthe wedding of the second, and the only reservation was a request that\nthe matter should not be allowed to get abroad.[217] It was the same\nportion of Luther's theology, and the same opposition to the spirit of\nthe Church in the treatment of Scripture, that induced him to believe in\nastrology and to ridicule the Copernican system.[218]\n\nHis view of the authority of Scripture and his theory of justification\nboth precluded him from appreciating freedom. \"Christian freedom,\" he\nsaid, \"consists in the belief that we require no works to attain piety\nand salvation.\"[219] Thus he became the inventor of the theory of\npassive obedience, according to which no motives or provocation can\njustify a revolt; and the party against whom the revolt is directed,\nwhatever its guilt may be, is to be preferred to the party revolting,\nhowever just its cause.[220] In 1530 he therefore declared that the\nGerman princes had no right to resist the Emperor in defence of their\nreligion. \"It was the duty of a Christian,\" he said, \"to suffer wrong,\nand no breach of oath or of duty could deprive the Emperor of his right\nto the unconditional obedience of his subjects.\"[221] Even the empire\nseemed to him a despotism, from his scriptural belief that it was a\ncontinuation of the last of the four monarchies.[222] He preferred\nsubmission, in the hope of seeing a future Protestant Emperor, to a\nresistance which might have dismembered the empire if it had succeeded,\nand in which failure would have been fatal to the Protestants; and he\nwas always afraid to draw the logical consequences of his theory of the\nduty of Protestants towards Catholic sovereigns. In consequence of this\nfact, Ranke affirms that the great reformer was also one of the greatest\nconservatives that ever lived; and his biographer, Juergens, makes the\nmore discriminating remark that history knows of no man who was at once\nso great an insurgent and so great an upholder of order as he.[223]\nNeither of these writers understood that the same principle lies at the\nroot both of revolution and of passive obedience, and that the\ndifference is only in the temper of the person who applies it, and in\nthe outward circumstances.\n\nLuther's theory is apparently in opposition to Protestant interests, for\nit entitles Catholicism to the protection of Catholic Powers. He\ndisguised from himself this inconsistency, and reconciled theory with\nexpediency by the calculation that the immense advantages which his\nsystem offered to the princes would induce them all to adopt it. For,\nbesides the consolatory doctrine of justification,--\"a doctrine\noriginal, specious, persuasive, powerful against Rome, and wonderfully\nadapted, as if prophetically, to the genius of the times which were to\nfollow,\"[224]--he bribed the princes with the wealth of the Church,\nindependence of ecclesiastical authority, facilities for polygamy, and\nabsolute power. He told the peasants not to take arms against the Church\nunless they could persuade the Government to give the order; but\nthinking it probable, in 1522, that the Catholic clergy would, in spite\nof his advice, be exterminated by the fury of the people, he urged the\nGovernment to suppress them, because what was done by the constituted\nauthority could not be wrong.[225] Persuaded that the sovereign power\nwould be on his side, he allowed no limits to its extent. It is absurd,\nhe says, to imagine that, even with the best intentions, kings can avoid\ncommitting occasional injustice; they stand, therefore, particularly in\nneed--not of safeguards against the abuse of power, but--of the\nforgiveness of sins.[226] The power thus concentrated in the hands of\nthe rulers for the guardianship of the faith, he wished to be used with\nthe utmost severity against unregenerate men, in whom there was neither\nmoral virtue nor civil rights, and from whom no good could come until\nthey were converted. He therefore required that all crimes should be\nmost cruelly punished and that the secular arm should be employed to\nconvert where it did not destroy. The idea of mercy tempering justice he\ndenounced as a Popish superstition.[227]\n\nThe chief object of the severity thus recommended was, of course,\nefficaciously to promote the end for which Government itself was held to\nbe instituted. The clergy had authority over the conscience, but it was\nthought necessary that they should be supported by the State with the\nabsolute penalties of outlawry, in order that error might be\nexterminated, although it was impossible to banish sin.[228] No\nGovernment, it was maintained, could tolerate heresy without being\nresponsible for the souls that were seduced by it;[229] and as Ezechiel\ndestroyed the brazen serpent to prevent idolatry, the mass must be\nsuppressed, for the mass was the worst kind of idolatry.[230] In 1530,\nwhen it was proposed to leave the matters in dispute to the decision of\nthe future Council, Luther declared that the mass and monastic life\ncould not be tolerated in the meantime, because it was unlawful to\nconnive at error.[231] \"It will lie heavy on your conscience,\" he writes\nto the Duke of Saxony, \"if you tolerate the Catholic worship; for no\nsecular prince can permit his subjects to be divided by the preaching\nof opposite doctrines. The Catholics have no right to complain, for they\ndo not prove the truth of their doctrine from Scripture, and therefore\ndo not conscientiously believe it.\"[232] He would tolerate them only if\nthey acknowledged themselves, like the Jews, enemies of Christ and of\nthe Emperor, and consented to exist as outcasts of society.[233]\n\"Heretics,\" he said, \"are not to be disputed with, but to be condemned\nunheard, and whilst they perish by fire, the faithful ought to pursue\nthe evil to its source, and bathe their hands in the blood of the\nCatholic bishops, and of the Pope, who is a devil in disguise.\"[234]\n\nThe persecuting principles which were involved in Luther's system, but\nwhich he cared neither to develop, to apply, nor to defend, were formed\ninto a definite theory by the colder genius of Melanchthon. Destitute of\nLuther's confidence in his own strength, and in the infallible success\nof his doctrine, he clung more eagerly to the hope of achieving victory\nby the use of physical force. Like his master he too hesitated at first,\nand opposed the use of severe measures against the Zwickau prophets; but\nwhen he saw the development of that early germ of dissent, and the\ngradual dissolution of Lutheran unity, he repented of his ill-timed\nclemency.[235] He was not deterred from asserting the duty of\npersecution by the risk of putting arms into the hands of the enemies of\nthe Reformation. He acknowledged the danger, but he denied the right.\nCatholic powers, he deemed, might justly persecute, but they could only\npersecute error. They must apply the same criterion which the Lutherans\napplied, and then they were justified in persecuting those whom the\nLutherans also proscribed. For the civil power had no right to proscribe\na religion in order to save itself from the dangers of a distracted and\ndivided population. The judge of the fact and of the danger must be, not\nthe magistrate, but the clergy.[236] The crime lay, not in dissent, but\nin error. Here, therefore, Melanchthon repudiated the theory and\npractice of the Catholics, whose aid he invoked; for all the intolerance\nin the Catholic times was founded on the combination of two ideas--the\ncriminality of apostasy, and the inability of the State to maintain its\nauthority where the moral sense of a part of the community was in\nopposition to it. The reformers, therefore, approved the Catholic\npractice of intolerance, and even encouraged it, although their own\nprinciples of persecution were destitute not only of connection, but\neven of analogy, with it. By simply accepting the inheritance of the\nmediaeval theory of the religious unity of the empire, they would have\nbeen its victims. By asserting that persecution was justifiable only\nagainst error, that is, only when purely religious, they set up a shield\nfor themselves, and a sword against those sects for whose destruction\nthey were more eager than the Catholics. Whether we refer the origin of\nProtestant intolerance to the doctrines or to the interests of the\nReformation, it appears totally unconnected with the tradition of\nCatholic ages, or the atmosphere of Catholicism. All severities\nexercised by Catholics before that time had a practical motive; but\nProtestant persecution was based on a purely speculative foundation, and\nwas due partly to the influence of Scripture examples, partly to the\nsupposed interests of the Protestant party. It never admitted the\nexclusion of dissent to be a political right of the State, but\nmaintained the suppression of error to be its political duty. To say,\ntherefore, that the Protestants learnt persecution from the Catholics,\nis as false as to say that they used it by way of revenge. For they\nfounded it on very different and contradictory grounds, and they\nadmitted the right of the Catholics to persecute even the Protestant\nsects.\n\nMelanchthon taught that the sects ought to be put down by the sword, and\nthat any individual who started new opinions ought to be punished with\ndeath.[237] He carefully laid down that these severities were requisite,\nnot in consideration of the danger to the State, nor of immoral\nteaching, nor even of such differences as would weaken the authority or\narrest the action of the ecclesiastical organisation, but simply on\naccount of a difference, however slight, in the theologumena of\nProtestantism.[238] Thamer, who held the possibility of salvation among\nthe heathen; Schwenkfeld, who taught that not the written Word, but the\ninternal illumination of grace in the soul was the channel of God's\ninfluence on man; the Zwinglians, with their error on the Eucharist, all\nthese met with no more favour than the fanatical Anabaptists.[239] The\nState was held bound to vindicate the first table of the law with the\nsame severity as those commandments on which civil society depends for\nits existence. The government of the Church being administered by the\ncivil magistrates, it was their office also to enforce the ordinances of\nreligion; and the same power whose voice proclaimed religious orthodoxy\nand law held in its hand the sword by which they were enforced. No\nreligious authority existed except through the civil power.[240] The\nChurch was merged in the State; but the laws of the State, in return,\nwere identified with the commandments of religion.[241]\n\nIn accordance with these principles, the condemnation of Servetus by a\ncivil tribunal, which had no authority over him, and no jurisdiction\nover his crime--the most aggressive and revolutionary act, therefore,\nthat is conceivable in the casuistry of persecution--was highly approved\nby Melanchthon. He declared it a most useful example for all future\nages, and could not understand that there should be any who did not\nregard it in the same favourable light.[242] It is true that Servetus,\nby denying the divinity of Christ, was open to the charge of blasphemy\nin a stricter sense than that in which the reformers generally applied\nit. But this was not the case with the Catholics. They did not\nrepresent, like the sects, an element of dissolution in Protestantism,\nand the bulk of their doctrine was admitted by the reformers. They were\nnot in revolt against existing authority; they required no special\ninnovations for their protection; they demanded only that the change of\nreligion should not be compulsory. Yet Melanchthon held that they too\nwere to be proscribed, because their worship was idolatrous.[243] In\ndoing this he adopted the principle of aggressive intolerance, which was\nat that time new to the Christian world; and which the Popes and\nCouncils of the Catholic Church had condemned when the zeal of laymen\nhad gone beyond the lawful measure. In the Middle Ages there had been\npersecution far more sanguinary than any that has been inflicted by\nProtestants. Various motives had occasioned it and various arguments had\nbeen used in its defence. But the principle on which the Protestants\noppressed the Catholics was new. The Catholics had never admitted the\ntheory of absolute toleration, as it was defined at first by Luther, and\nafterwards by some of the sects. In principle, their tolerance differed\nfrom that of the Protestants as widely as their intolerance. They had\nexterminated sects which, like the Albigenses, threatened to overturn\nthe fabric of Christian society. They had proscribed different\nreligions where the State was founded on religious unity, and where this\nunity formed an integral part of its laws and administration. They had\ngone one step further, and punished those whom the Church condemned as\napostates; thereby vindicating, not, as in the first case, the moral\nbasis of society, nor, as in the second, the religious foundation of the\nState, but the authority of the Church and the purity of her doctrine,\non which they relied as the pillar and bulwark of the social and\npolitical order. Where a portion of the inhabitants of any country\npreferred a different creed, Jew, Mohammedan, heathen, or schismatic,\nthey had been generally tolerated, with enjoyment of property and\npersonal freedom, but not with that of political power or autonomy. But\npolitical freedom had been denied them because they did not admit the\ncommon ideas of duty which were its basis. This position, however, was\nnot tenable, and was the source of great disorders. The Protestants, in\nlike manner, could give reasons for several kinds of persecution. They\ncould bring the Socinians under the category of blasphemers; and\nblasphemy, like the ridicule of sacred things, destroys reverence and\nawe, and tends to the destruction of society. The Anabaptists, they\nmight argue, were revolutionary fanatics, whose doctrines were\nsubversive of the civil order; and the dogmatic sects threatened the\nruin of ecclesiastical unity within the Protestant community itself. But\nby placing the necessity of intolerance on the simple ground of\nreligious error, and in directing it against the Church which they\nthemselves had abandoned, they introduced a purely subjective test, and\na purely revolutionary system. It is on this account that the _tu\nquoque_, or retaliatory argument, is inadmissible between Catholics and\nProtestants. Catholic intolerance is handed down from an age when unity\nsubsisted, and when its preservation, being essential for that of\nsociety, became a necessity of State as well as a result of\ncircumstances. Protestant intolerance, on the contrary was the peculiar\nfruit of a dogmatic system in contradiction with the facts and\nprinciples on which the intolerance actually existing among Catholics\nwas founded. Spanish intolerance has been infinitely more sanguinary\nthan Swedish; but in Spain, independently of the interests of religion,\nthere were strong political and social reasons to justify persecution\nwithout seeking any theory to prop it up; whilst in Sweden all those\npractical considerations have either been wanting, or have been opposed\nto persecution, which has consequently had no justification except the\ntheory of the Reformation. The only instance in which the Protestant\ntheory has been adopted by Catholics is the revocation of the Edict of\nNantes.\n\nTowards the end of his life, Melanchthon, having ceased to be a strict\nLutheran, receded somewhat from his former uncompromising position, and\nwas adverse to a strict scrutiny into minor theological differences. He\ndrew a distinction between errors that required punishment and\nvariations that were not of practical importance.[244] The English\nCalvinists who took refuge in Germany in the reign of Mary Tudor were\nungraciously received by those who were stricter Lutherans than\nMelanchthon. He was consulted concerning the course to be adopted\ntowards the refugees, and he recommended toleration. But both at Wesel\nand at Frankfort his advice was, to his great disgust, overruled.[245]\n\nThe severities of the Protestants were chiefly provoked by the\nAnabaptists, who denied the lawfulness of civil government, and strove\nto realise the kingdom of God on earth by absorbing the State in the\nChurch.[246] None protested more loudly than they against the Lutheran\nintolerance, or suffered from it more severely. But while denying the\nspiritual authority of the State, they claimed for their religious\ncommunity a still more absolute right of punishing error by death.\nThough they sacrificed government to religion, the effect was the same\nas that of absorbing the Church in the State. In 1524 Muenzer published a\nsermon, in which he besought the Lutheran princes to extirpate\nCatholicism. \"Have no remorse,\" he says; \"for He to whom all power is\ngiven in heaven and on earth means to govern alone.\"[247] He demanded\nthe punishment of all heretics, the destruction of all who were not of\nhis faith, and the institution of religious unity. \"Do not pretend,\" he\nsays, \"that the power of God will accomplish it without the use of your\nsword, or it will grow rusty in the scabbard. The tree that bringeth not\nforth good fruit must be cut down and cast into the fire.\" And\nelsewhere, \"the ungodly have no right to live, except so far as the\nelect choose to grant it them.\"[248] When the Anabaptists were supreme\nat Muenster, they exhibited the same intolerance. At seven in the morning\nof Friday, 27th February 1534, they ran through the streets crying,\n\"Away with the ungodly!\" Breaking into the houses of those who refused\ntheir baptism, they drove the men out of the town, and forcibly\nrebaptized the women who remained behind.[249] Whilst, therefore, the\nAnabaptists were punished for questioning the authority of the\nLutherans in religious matters, they practically justified their\npersecution by their own intolerant doctrines. In fact, they carried the\nProtestant principles of persecution to an extreme. For whereas the\nLutherans regarded the defence of truth and punishment of error as\nbeing, in part, the object of the institution of civil government, they\nrecognised it as an advantage by which the State was rewarded for its\npains; but the Anabaptists repudiated the political element altogether,\nand held that error should be exterminated solely for the sake of truth,\nand at the expense of all existing States.\n\nBucer, whose position in the history of the Reformation is so peculiar,\nand who differed in important points from the Saxon leaders, agreed with\nthem on the necessity of persecuting. He was so anxious for the success\nof Protestantism, that he was ready to sacrifice and renounce important\ndoctrines, in order to save the appearance of unity;[250] but those\nopinions in which he took so little dogmatic interest, he was resolved\nto defend by force. He was very much dissatisfied with the reluctance of\nthe Senate of Strasburg to adopt severe measures against the Catholics.\nHis colleague Capito was singularly tolerant; for the feeling of the\ninhabitants was not decidedly in favour of the change.[251] But Bucer,\nhis biographer tells us, was, in spite of his inclination to mediate,\nnot friendly to this temporising system; partly because he had an\norganising intellect, which relied greatly on practical discipline to\npreserve what had been conquered, and on restriction of liberty to be\nthe most certain security for its preservation; partly because he had a\ndeep insight into the nature of various religious tendencies, and was\njustly alarmed at their consequences for Church and State.[252] This\npoint in the character of Bucer provoked a powerful resistance to his\nsystem of ecclesiastical discipline, for it was feared that he would\ngive to the clergy a tyrannical power.[253] It is true that the\ndemoralisation which ensued on the destruction of the old ecclesiastical\nauthority rendered a strict attention on the part of the State to the\naffairs of religion highly necessary.[254] The private and confidential\ncommunications of the German reformers give a more hideous picture of\nthe moral condition of the generation which followed the Reformation\nthan they draw in their published writings of that which preceded it. It\nis on this account that Bucer so strongly insisted on the necessity of\nthe interference of the civil power in support of the discipline of the\nChurch.\n\nThe Swiss reformers, between whom and the Saxons Bucer forms a\nconnecting link, differ from them in one respect, which greatly\ninfluenced their notions of government. Luther lived under a monarchy\nwhich was almost absolute, and in which the common people, who were of\nSlavonic origin, were in the position of the most abject servitude; but\nthe divines of Zuerich and Bern were republicans. They did not therefore\nentertain his exalted views as to the irresistible might of the State;\nand instead of requiring as absolute a theory of the indefectibility of\nthe civil power as he did, they were satisfied with obtaining a\npreponderating influence for themselves. Where the power was in hands\nless favourable to their cause, they had less inducement to exaggerate\nits rights.\n\nZwingli abolishes both the distinction between Church and State and the\nnotion of ecclesiastical authority. In his system the civil rulers\npossess the spiritual functions; and, as their foremost duty is the\npreservation and promotion of the true religion, it is their business to\npreach. As magistrates are too much occupied with other things, they\nmust delegate the ministry of the word to preachers, for whose orthodoxy\nthey have to provide. They are bound to establish uniformity of\ndoctrine, and to defend it against Papists and heretics. This is not\nonly their right, but their duty; and not only their duty, but the\ncondition on which they retain office.[255] Rulers who do not act in\naccordance with it are to be dismissed. Thus Zwingli combined\npersecution and revolution in the same doctrine. But he was not a\nfanatical persecutor, and his severity was directed less against the\nCatholics than against the Anabaptists,[256] whose prohibition of all\ncivil offices was more subversive of order in a republic than in a\nmonarchy. Even, however, in the case of the Anabaptists the special\nprovocation was--not the peril to the State, nor the scandal of their\nerrors, but--the schism which weakened the Church.[257] The punishment\nof heresy for the glory of God was almost inconsistent with the theory\nthat there is no ecclesiastical power. It was not so much provoked in\nZuerich as elsewhere, because in a small republican community, where the\ngoverning body was supreme over both civil and religious affairs,\nreligious unity was a matter of course. The practical necessity of\nmaintaining unity put out of sight the speculative question of the guilt\nand penalty of error.\n\nSoon after Zwingli's death, Leo Judae called for severer measures against\nthe Catholics, expressly stating, however, that they did not deserve\ndeath. \"Excommunication,\" he said, \"was too light a punishment to be\ninflicted by the State which wields the sword, and the faults in\nquestion were not great enough to involve the danger of death.\"[258]\nAfterwards he fell into doubts as to the propriety of severe measures\nagainst dissenters, but his friends Bullinger and Capito succeeded in\nremoving his scruples, and in obtaining his acquiescence in that\nintolerance, which was, says his biographer, a question of life and\ndeath for the Protestant Church.[259] Bullinger took, like Zwingli, a\nmore practical view of the question than was common in Germany. He\nthought it safer strictly to exclude religious differences than to put\nthem down with fire and sword; \"for in this case,\" he says, \"the victims\ncompare themselves to the early martyrs, and make their punishment a\nweapon of defence.\"[260] He did not, however, forbid capital punishment\nin cases of heresy. In the year 1535 he drew up an opinion on the\ntreatment of religious error, which is written in a tone of great\nmoderation. In this document he says \"that all sects which introduce\ndivision into the Church must be put down, and not only such as, like\nthe Anabaptists, threaten to subvert society, for the destruction of\norder and unity often begins in an apparently harmless or imperceptible\nway. The culprit should be examined with gentleness. If his disposition\nis good he will not refuse instruction; if not, still patience must be\nshown until there is no hope of converting him. Then he must be treated\nlike other malefactors, and handed over to the torturer and the\nexecutioner.\"[261] After this time there were no executions for religion\nin Zuerich, and the number, even in the lifetime of Zwingli, was less\nconsiderable than in many other places. But it was still understood that\nconfirmed heretics would be put to death. In 1546, in answer to the\nPope's invitation to the Council of Trent, Bullinger indignantly\nrepudiates the insinuation that the Protestant cantons were heretical,\n\"for, by the grace of God, we have always punished the vices of heresy\nand sodomy with fire, and have looked upon them, and still look upon\nthem, with horror.\"[262] This accusation of heresy inflamed the zeal of\nthe reformers against heretics, in order to prove to the Catholics that\nthey had no sympathy with them. On these grounds Bullinger recommended\nthe execution of Servetus. \"If the high Council inflicts on him the fate\ndue to a worthless blasphemer, all the world will see that the people of\nGeneva hate blasphemers, and that they punish with the sword of justice\nheretics who are obstinate in their heresy.... Strict fidelity and\nvigilance are needed, because our churches are in ill repute abroad, as\nif we were heretics and friends of heresy. Now God's holy providence has\nfurnished an opportunity of clearing ourselves of this evil\nsuspicion.\"[263] After the event he advised Calvin to justify it, as\nthere were some who were taken aback. \"Everywhere,\" he says, \"there are\nexcellent men who are convinced that godless and blaspheming men ought\nnot only to be rebuked and imprisoned, but also to be put to death....\nHow Servetus could have been spared I cannot see.\"[264]\n\nThe position of OEcolampadius in reference to these questions was\naltogether singular and exceptional. He dreaded the absorption of the\necclesiastical functions by the State, and sought to avoid it by the\nintroduction of a council of twelve elders, partly magistrates, partly\nclergy, to direct ecclesiastical affairs. \"Many things,\" he said, \"are\npunished by the secular power less severely than the dignity of the\nChurch demands. On the other hand, it punishes the repentant, to whom\nthe Church shows mercy. Either it blunts the edge of its sword by not\npunishing the guilty, or it brings some hatred on the Gospel by\nseverity.\"[265] But the people of Basel were deaf to the arguments of\nthe reformer, and here, as elsewhere, the civil power usurped the office\nof the Church. In harmony with this jealousy of political interference,\nOEcolampadius was very merciful to the Anabaptists. \"Severe penalties,\"\nhe said, \"were likely to aggravate the evil; forgiveness would hasten\nthe cure.\"[266] A few months later, however, he regretted this leniency.\n\"We perceive,\" he writes to a friend, \"that we have sometimes shown too\nmuch indulgence; but this is better than to proceed tyrannically, or to\nsurrender the keys of the Church.\"[267] Whilst, on the other hand, he\nrejoiced at the expulsion of the Catholics, he ingeniously justified the\npractice of the Catholic persecutors. \"In the early ages of the Church,\nwhen the divinity of Christ manifested itself to the world by miracles,\nGod incited the Apostles to treat the ungodly with severity. When the\nmiracles ceased, and the faith was universally adopted, He gained the\nhearts of princes and rulers, so that they undertook to protect with the\nsword the gentleness and patience of the Church. They rigorously\nresisted, in fulfilment of the duties of their office, the contemners of\nthe Church.\"[268] \"The clergy,\" he goes on to say, \"became tyrannical\nbecause they usurped to themselves a power which they ought to have\nshared with others; and as the people dread the return of this tyranny\nof ecclesiastical authority, it is wiser for the Protestant clergy to\nmake no use of the similar power of excommunication which is intrusted\nto them.\"\n\nCalvin, as the subject of an absolute monarch, and the ruling spirit in\na republic, differed both from the German and the Swiss reformers in his\nidea of the State both in its object and in its duty towards the Church.\nAn exile from his own country, he had lost the associations and habits\nof monarchy, and his views of discipline as well as doctrine were\nmatured before he took up his abode in Switzerland.[269] His system was\nnot founded on existing facts; it had no roots in history, but was\npurely ideal, speculative, and therefore more consistent and inflexible\nthan any other. Luther's political ideas were bounded by the horizon of\nthe monarchical absolutism under which he lived. Zwingli's were\ninfluenced by the democratic forms of his native country, which gave to\nthe whole community the right of appointing the governing body. Calvin,\nindependent of all such considerations, studied only how his doctrine\ncould best be realised, whether through the instrumentality of existing\nauthorities, or at their expense. In his eyes its interests were\nparamount, their promotion the supreme duty, opposition to them an\nunpardonable crime. There was nothing in the institutions of men, no\nauthority, no right, no liberty, that he cared to preserve, or towards\nwhich he entertained any feelings of reverence or obligation.\n\nHis theory made the support of religious truth the end and office of the\nState,[270] which was bound therefore to protect, and consequently to\nobey, the Church, and had no control over it. In religion the first and\nhighest thing was the dogma: the preservation of morals was one\nimportant office of government; but the maintenance of the purity of\ndoctrine was the highest. The result of this theory is the institution\nof a pure theocracy. If the elect were alone upon the earth, Calvin\ntaught, there would be no need of the political order, and the\nAnabaptists would be right in rejecting it;[271] but the elect are in a\nminority; and there is the mass of reprobates who must be coerced by the\nsword, in order that all the world may be made subject to the truth, by\nthe conquerors imposing their faith upon the vanquished.[272] He wished\nto extend religion by the sword, but to reserve death as the punishment\nof apostasy; and as this law would include the Catholics, who were in\nCalvin's eyes apostates from the truth, he narrowed it further to those\nwho were apostates from the community. In this way, he said, there was\nno pretext given to the Catholics to retaliate.[273] They, as well as\nthe Jews and Mohammedans, must be allowed to live: death was only the\npenalty of Protestants who relapsed into error; but to them it applied\nequally whether they were converted to the Church or joined the sects\nand fell into unbelief. Only in cases where there was no danger of his\nwords being used against the Protestants, and in letters not intended\nfor publication, he required that Catholics should suffer the same\npenalties as those who were guilty of sedition, on the ground that the\nmajesty of God must be as strictly avenged as the throne of the\nking.[274]\n\nIf the defence of the truth was the purpose for which power was\nintrusted to princes, it was natural that it should be also the\ncondition on which they held it. Long before the revolution of 1688,\nCalvin had decided that princes who deny the true faith, \"abdicate\"\ntheir crowns, and are no longer to be obeyed;[275] and that no oaths are\nbinding which are in contradiction to the interests of Protestantism.[276]\nHe painted the princes of his age in the blackest colours,[277] and\nprayed to God for their destruction;[278] though at the same time he\ncondemned all rebellion on the part of his friends, so long as there were\ngreat doubts of their success.[279] His principles, however, were often\nstronger than his exhortations, and he had difficulty in preventing murders\nand seditious movements in France,[280] When he was dead, nobody prevented\nthem, and it became clear that his system, by subjecting the civil power\nto the service of religion, was more dangerous to toleration than Luther's\nplan of giving to the State supremacy over the Church.\n\nCalvin was as positive as Luther in asserting the duty of obedience to\nrulers irrespective of their mode of government[281] He constantly\ndeclared that tyranny was not to be resisted on political grounds; that\nno civil rights could outweigh the divine sanction of government; except\nin cases where a special office was appointed for the purpose. Where\nthere was no such office--where, for instance, the estates of the realm\nhad lost their independence--there was no protection. This is one of the\nmost important and essential characteristics of the politics of the\nreformers. By making the protection of their religion the principal\nbusiness of government, they put out of sight its more immediate and\nuniversal duties, and made the political objects of the State disappear\nbehind its religious end. A government was to be judged, in their eyes,\nonly by its fidelity to the Protestant Church. If it fulfilled those\nrequirements, no other complaints against it could be entertained. A\ntyrannical prince could not be resisted if he was orthodox; a just\nprince could be dethroned if he failed in the more essential condition\nof faith. In this way Protestantism became favourable at once to\ndespotism and to revolution, and was ever ready to sacrifice good\ngovernment to its own interests. It subverted monarchies, and, at the\nsame time, denounced those who, for political causes, sought their\nsubversion; but though the monarchies it subverted were sometimes\ntyrannical, and the seditions it prevented sometimes revolutionary, the\norder it defended or sought to establish was never legitimate and free,\nfor it was always invested with the function of religious\nproselytism,[282] and with the obligation of removing every traditional,\nsocial, or political right or power which could oppose the discharge of\nthat essential duty.\n\nThe part Calvin had taken in the death of Servetus obliged him to\ndevelop more fully his views on the punishment of heresy. He wrote a\nshort account of the trial,[283] and argued that governments are bound\nto suppress heresy, and that those who deny the justice of the\npunishment, themselves deserve it.[284] The book was signed by all the\nclergy of Geneva, as Calvin's compurgators. It was generally considered\na failure; and a refutation appeared, which was so skilful as to produce\na great sensation in the Protestant world.[285] This famous tract, now\nof extreme rarity, did not, as has been said, \"contain the pith of those\narguments which have ultimately triumphed in almost every part of\nEurope;\" nor did it preach an unconditional toleration.[286] But it\nstruck hard at Calvin by quoting a passage from the first edition of his\n_Institutes_, afterwards omitted, in which he spoke for toleration.\n\"Some of those,\" says the author, \"whom we quote have subsequently\nwritten in a different spirit. Nevertheless, we have cited the earlier\nopinion as the true one, as it was expressed under the pressure of\npersecution,\"[287] The first edition, we are informed by Calvin himself,\nwas written for the purpose of vindicating the Protestants who were put\nto death, and of putting a stop to the persecution. It was anonymous,\nand naturally dwelt on the principles of toleration.\n\nAlthough this book did not denounce all intolerance, and although it was\nextremely moderate, Calvin and his friends were filled with horror.\n\"What remains of Christianity,\" exclaimed Beza, \"if we silently admit\nwhat this man has expectorated in his preface?... Since the beginning of\nChristianity no such blasphemy was ever heard.\"[288] Beza undertook to\ndefend Calvin in an elaborate work,[289] in which it was easy for him to\ncite the authority of all the leading reformers in favour of the\npractice of putting heretics to death, and in which he reproduced all\nthe arguments of those who had written on the subject before him. More\nsystematic than Calvin, he first of all excludes those who are not\nChristians--the Jews, Turks, and heathen--whom his inquiry does not\ntouch; \"among Christians,\" he proceeds to say, \"some are schismatics,\nwho sin against the peace of the Church, or disbelievers, who reject her\ndoctrine. Among these, some err in all simplicity; and if their error is\nnot very grave, and if they do not seduce others, they need not be\npunished.\"[290] \"But obstinate heretics are far worse than parricides,\nand deserve death, even if they repent.\"[291] \"It is the duty of the\nState to punish them, for the whole ecclesiastical order is upheld by\nthe political.\"[292] In early ages this power was exercised by the\ntemporal sovereigns; they convoked councils, punished heretics,\npromulgated dogmas. The Papacy afterwards arose, in evil times, and was\na great calamity; but it was preferable a hundred times to the anarchy\nwhich was defended under the name of merciful toleration.\n\nThe circumstances of the condemnation of Servetus make it the most\nperfect and characteristic example of the abstract intolerance of the\nreformers. Servetus was guilty of no political crime; he was not an\ninhabitant of Geneva, and was on the point of leaving it, and nothing\nimmoral could be attributed to him. He was not even an advocate of\nabsolute toleration.[293] The occasion of his apprehension was a dispute\nbetween a Catholic and a Protestant, as to which party was most zealous\nin suppressing egregious errors. Calvin, who had long before declared\nthat if Servetus came to Geneva he should never leave it alive,[294] did\nall he could to obtain his condemnation by the Inquisition at Vienne. At\nGeneva he was anxious that the sentence should be death,[295] and in\nthis he was encouraged by the Swiss churches, but especially by Beza,\nFarel, Bullinger, and Peter Martyr.[296] All the Protestant authorities,\ntherefore, agreed in the justice of putting a writer to death in whose\ncase all the secondary motives of intolerance were wanting. Servetus was\nnot a party leader. He had no followers who threatened to upset the\npeace and unity of the Church. His doctrine was speculative, without\npower or attraction for the masses, like Lutheranism; and without\nconsequences subversive of morality, or affecting in any direct way the\nexistence of society, like Anabaptism.[297] He had nothing to do with\nGeneva, and his persecutors would have rejoiced if he had been put to\ndeath elsewhere. \"Bayle,\" says Hallam,[298] \"has an excellent remark on\nthis controversy.\" Bayle's remark is as follows: \"Whenever Protestants\ncomplain, they are answered by the right which Calvin and Beza\nrecognised in magistrates; and to this day there has been nobody who has\nnot failed pitiably against this _argumentum ad hominem_.\"\n\nNo question of the merits of the Reformation or of persecution is\ninvolved in an inquiry as to the source and connection of the opinions\non toleration held by the Protestant reformers. No man's sentiments on\nthe rightfulness of religious persecution will be affected by the\ntheories we have described, and they have no bearing whatever on\ndoctrinal controversy. Those who--in agreement with the principle of the\nearly Church, that men are free in matters of conscience--condemn all\nintolerance, will censure Catholics and Protestants alike. Those who\npursue the same principle one step farther and practically invert it, by\ninsisting on the right and duty not only of professing but of extending\nthe truth, must, as it seems to us, approve the conduct both of\nProtestants and Catholics, unless they make the justice of the\npersecution depend on the truth of the doctrine defended, in which case\nthey will divide on both sides. Such persons, again, as are more\nstrongly impressed with the cruelty of actual executions than with the\ndanger of false theories, may concentrate their indignation on the\nCatholics of Languedoc and Spain; while those who judge principles, not\nby the accidental details attending their practical realisation, but by\nthe reasoning on which they are founded, will arrive at a verdict\nadverse to the Protestants. These comparative inquiries, however, have\nlittle serious interest. If we give our admiration to tolerance, we must\nremember that the Spanish Moors and the Turks in Europe have been more\ntolerant than the Christians; and if we admit the principle of\nintolerance, and judge its application by particular conditions, we are\nbound to acknowledge that the Romans had better reason for persecution\nthan any modern State, since their empire was involved in the decline of\nthe old religion, with which it was bound up, whereas no Christian\npolity has been subverted by the mere presence of religious dissent. The\ncomparison is, moreover, entirely unreasonable, for there is nothing in\ncommon between Catholic and Protestant intolerance. The Church began\nwith the principle of liberty, both as her claim and as her rule; and\nexternal circumstances forced intolerance upon her, after her spirit of\nunity had triumphed, in spite both of the freedom she proclaimed and of\nthe persecutions she suffered. Protestantism set up intolerance as an\nimperative precept and as a part of its doctrine, and it was forced to\nadmit toleration by the necessities of its position, after the rigorous\npenalties it imposed had failed to arrest the process of internal\ndissolution.[299]\n\nAt the time when this involuntary change occurred the sects that caused\nit were the bitterest enemies of the toleration they demanded. In the\nsame age the Puritans and the Catholics sought a refuge beyond the\nAtlantic from the persecution which they suffered together under the\nStuarts. Flying for the same reason, and from the same oppression, they\nwere enabled respectively to carry out their own views in the colonies\nwhich they founded in Massachusetts and Maryland, and the history of\nthose two States exhibits faithfully the contrast between the two\nChurches. The Catholic emigrants established, for the first time in\nmodern history, a government in which religion was free, and with it the\ngerm of that religious liberty which now prevails in America. The\nPuritans, on the other hand, revived with greater severity the penal\nlaws of the mother country. In process of time the liberty of conscience\nin the Catholic colony was forcibly abolished by the neighbouring\nProtestants of Virginia; while on the borders of Massachusetts the new\nState of Rhode Island was formed by a party of fugitives from the\nintolerance of their fellow-colonists.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 193: _The Rambler_, March 1862.]\n\n[Footnote 194: \"Le vrai principe de Luther est celui-ci: La volonte est\nesclave par nature.... Le libre examen a ete pour Luther un moyen et non\nun principe. Il s'en est servi, et etait contraint de s'en servir pour\netablir son vrai principe, qui etait la toute-puissance de la foi et de\nla grace.... C'est ainsi que le libre examen s'imposa au Protestantisme.\nL'accessoire devint le principal, et la forme devora plus ou moins le\nfond\" (Janet, _Histoire de la Philosophie Morale_, ii. 38. 39).]\n\n[Footnote 195: \"If they prohibit true doctrine, and punish their\nsubjects for receiving the entire sacrament, as Christ ordained it,\ncompel the people to idolatrous practices, with masses for the dead,\nindulgences, invocation of saints, and the like, in these things they\nexceed their office, and seek to deprive God of the obedience due to\nHim. For God requires from us this above all, that we hear His Word, and\nfollow it; but where the Government desires to prevent this, the\nsubjects must know that they are not bound to obey it\" (Luther's\n_Werke_, xiii. 2244). \"Non est, mi Spalatine, principum et istius\nsaeculi Pontificum tueri verbum Dei, nec ea gratia ullorum peto\npraesidium\" (Luther's _Briefe_, ed. De Wette, i. 521, Nov. 4, 1520). \"I\nwill compel and urge by force no man; for the faith must be voluntary\nand not compulsory, and must be adopted without violence\" (\"Sermonen an\nCarlstadt,\" _Werke_, xx. 24, 1522).]\n\n[Footnote 196: \"Schrift an den christlichen Adel\" (_Werke_, x. 574, June\n1520). His proposition, _Haereticos comburi esse contra voluntatem\nspiritus_, was one of those condemned by Leo X. as pestilent,\nscandalous, and contrary to Christian charity.]\n\n[Footnote 197: \"Nihil non tentabunt Romanenses, nec potest satis\nHuttenus me monere, adeo mihi de veneno timet\" (De Wette, i. 487).\n\"Etiam inimici mei quidam miserti per amicos ex Halberstadio fecerunt\nmoneri me: esse quemdam doctorem medicinae, qui arte magica factus pro\nlibito invisibilis, quemdam occidit, mandatum habentem et occidendi\nLutheri, venturumque ad futuram Dominicam ostensionis reliquiarum: valde\nhoc constanter narratur\" (De Wette, i. 441). \"Est hic apud nos Judaeus\nPolonus, missus sub pretio 2000 aureorum, ut me veneno perdat, ab amicis\nper literas mihi proditus. Doctor est medicinae, et nihil non audere et\nfacere paratus incredibili astutia et agilitate\" (De Wette, ii. 616).\nSee also Jarcke, _Studien zur Geschichte der Reformation_, p. 176.]\n\n[Footnote 198: \"Multa ego premo et causa principis et universitatis\nnostrae cohibeo, quae (si alibi essem) evomerem in vastatricem\nScripturae et Ecclesiae Romanae.... Timeo miser, ne forte non sim dignus\npati et occidi pro tali causa: erit ista felicitas meliorum hominum, non\ntam foedi peccatoris. Dixi tibi semper me paratum esse cedere loco, si\nqua ego principi ill. viderer periculo hic vivere. Aliquando certe\nmoriendum est, quanquam jam edita vernacula quadam apologia satis aduler\nRomanae Ecclesiae et Pontifici, si quid forte id prosit\" (De Wette, i.\n260, 261). \"Ubi periculum est, ne iis protectoribus tutus saevius in\nRomanenses sim grassaturus, quam si sub principis imperio publicis\nmilitarem officiis docendi.... Ego vicissim, nisi ignem habere nequeam\ndamnabo, publiceque concremabo jus pontificium totum, id est, lernam\nillam haeresium; et finem habebit humilitatis exhibitae hactenusque\nfrustratae observantia qua nolo amplius inflari hostes Evangelii\"\n(_Ibid._ pp. 465, 466, July 10, 1520).]\n\n[Footnote 199: \"Out of the Gospel and divine truth come devilish lies;\n... from the blood in our body comes corruption; out of Luther come\nMuentzer, and rebels, Anabaptists, Sacramentarians, and false brethren\"\n(_Werke_, i. 75).]\n\n[Footnote 200: \"Habemus,\" wrote Erasmus, \"fructum tui spiritus.... Non\nagnoscis hosce seditiosos, opinor, sed illi te agnoscunt ... nec tamen\nefficis quominus credant homines per tuos libellos ... pro libertare\nevangelica, contra tyrannidem humanam, hisce tumultibus fuisse datam\noccasionem.\" \"And who will deny,\" adds a Protestant classic, \"that the\nfault was partly owing to them?\" (Planck, _Geschichte der\nprotestantischen Kirche_, ii, 183).]\n\n[Footnote 201: \"Ich sehe das wohl, dass der Teufel, so er mich bisher\nnicht hat moegen umbringen durch den Pabst, sucht er mich durch die\nblutduerstigen Mordpropheten und Rottengeisten, so unter euch sind, zu\nvertilgen und auffressen\" (_Werke_, xvi. 77).]\n\n[Footnote 202: Schenkel. _Wesen des Protestantismus_, iii. 348, 351;\nHagen, _Geist der Reformation_, ii. 146, 151; Menzel, _Neuere Geschichte\nder Deutschen_, i. 115.]\n\n[Footnote 203: See the best of his biographies, Juergens, _Luther's\nLeben_, iii. 601.]\n\n[Footnote 204: \"Quid hoc ad me? qui sciam etiam Turcam honorandum et\nferendum potestatis gratia. Quia certus sum non nisi volente Deo ullam\npotestatem consistere\" (De Wette, i. 236).]\n\n[Footnote 205: \"I beg first of all that you will not help to mollify\nCount Albert in these matters, but let him go on as he has begun....\nEncourage him to go on briskly, to leave things in the hands of God, and\nobey His divine command to wield the sword as long as he can.\" \"Do not\nallow yourselves to be much disturbed, for it will redound to the\nadvantage of many souls that will be terrified by it, and preserved.\"\n\"If there are innocent persons amongst them, God will surely save and\npreserve them, as He did with Lot and Jeremiah. If He does not, then\nthey are certainly not innocent.... We must pray for them that they\nobey, otherwise this is no time for compassion; just let the guns deal\nwith them.\" \"Sentio melius esse omnes rusticos caedi quam principes et\nmagistratus, eo quod rustici sine autoritate Dei gladium accipiunt. Quam\nnequitiam Satanae sequi non potest nisi mera Satanica vastitas regni\nDei, et mundi principes etsi excedunt, tamen gladium autoritate Dei\ngerunt. Ibi utrumque regnum consistere potest, quare nulla misericordia,\nnulla patientia rusticis debetur, sed ira et indignatio Dei et hominum\"\n(De Wette, ii. 653, 655, 666, 669, 671).]\n\n[Footnote 206: \"Wir lehren die christlich Obrigkeit moege nicht nur,\nsondern solle auch sich der Religion und Glaubenssachen mit Ernst\nannehmen; davon halten die Wiedertaeufer steif das Widerspiel, welches\nsie auch zum Theil gemein haben mit den Praelaten der roemischen Kirche\"\n(Declaration of the Protestants, quoted in Joerg, _Deutschland von 1522\nbis 1526_, p. 709).]\n\n[Footnote 207: \"As to your question, how they are to be punished, I do\nnot consider them blasphemers, but regard them in the light of the\nTurks, or deluded Christians, whom the civil power has not to punish, at\nleast bodily. But if they refuse to acknowledge and to obey the civil\nauthority, then they forfeit all they have and are, for then sedition\nand murder are certainly in their hearts\" (De Wette, ii. 622; Osiander's\nopinion in Joerg, p. 706).]\n\n[Footnote 208: \"Dass in dem Urtheil und desselben oeffentlicher\nVerkuendigung keines Irrthums oder Ketzereien ... sondern allein der\nAufruhr und fuergenommenen Morderei, die ihm doch laut seiner Urgicht nie\nlieb gewesen, gedacht werde\" (Joerg, p. 708).]\n\n[Footnote 209: \"Principes nostri non cogunt ad fidem et Evangelion, sed\ncohibent externas abominationes\" (De Wette, iii. 50). \"Wenn die\nweltliche Obrigkeit die Verbrechen wider die zweite Gesetzestafel\nbestrafen, und aus der menschlichen Gesellschaft tilgen solle, wie\nvielmehr denn die Verbrechen wider die erste?\" (Luther, _apud_ Bucholtz,\n_Geschichte Ferdinands I._, iii. 571).]\n\n[Footnote 210: Planck, iv. 61, explains why this was not thought of.]\n\n[Footnote 211: Linde, _Staatskirche_, p. 23. \"Der Papst sammt seinem\nHaufen glaubt nicht; darum bekennen wir, er werde nicht selig, das ist\nverdammt werden\" (_Table-Talk_, ii. 350).]\n\n[Footnote 212: Kaltenborn, _Vorlaeufer des Grotius_, 208.]\n\n[Footnote 213: Moehler, _Symbolik_, 428.]\n\n[Footnote 214: \"Quodsi unam legem Mosi cogimur servare, eadem ratione et\ncircumcidemur, et totam legem servare oportebit.... Nunc vero non sumus\namplius sub lege Mosi, sed subjecti legibus civilibus in talibus rebus\"\n(Luther to Barnes, Sept. 5, 1531; De Wette, iv. 296).]\n\n[Footnote 215: \"All things that we find done by the patriarchs in the\nOld Testament ought to be free and not forbidden. Circumcision is\nabolished, but not so that it would be a sin to perform it, but\noptional, neither sinful nor acceptable.... In like manner it is not\nforbidden that a man should have more than one wife. Even at the present\nday I could not prohibit it; but I would not recommend it\" (Commentary\non Genesis, 1528; see Jarcke, _Studien_, p. 108). \"Ego sane fateor, me\nnon posse prohibere, siquis plures velit uxores ducere, nec repugnat\nsacris literis: verum tamen apud Christianos id exempli nollem primo\nintroduci, apud quos decet etiam ea intermittere, quae licita sunt, pro\nvitando scandalo, et pro honestate vitae\" (De Wette, ii. 459, Jan. 13,\n1524). \"From these instances of bigamy (Lamech, Jacob) no rule can be\ndrawn for our times; and such examples have no power with us Christians,\nfor we live under our authorities, and are subject to our civil laws\"\n(_Table-Talk_, v. 64).]\n\n[Footnote 216: \"Antequam tale repudium, probarem potius regi permitterem\nalteram reginam quoque ducere, et exemplo patrum et regum duas simul\nuxores seu reginas habere.... Si peccavit ducendo uxorem fratris mortui,\npeccavit in legem humanam seu civilem; si autem repudiaverit, peccabit\nin legem mere divinam\" (De Wette, iv. 296). \"Haud dubio rex Angliae\nuxorem fratris mortui ductam retinere potest ... docendus quod has res\npoliticas commiserit Deus magistratibus, neque nos alligaverit ad\nMoisen.... Si vult rex successioni prospicere, quanto satius est, id\nfacere sine infamia prioris conjugii. Ac potest id fieri sine ullo\npericulo conscientiae cujuscunque aut famae per polygamiam. Etsi enim\nnon velim concedere polygamiam vulgo, dixi enim supra, nos non ferre\nleges, tamen in hoc casu propter magnam utilitatem regni, fortassis\netiam propter conscientiam regis, ita pronuncio: tutissimum esse regi,\nsi ducat secundam uxorem, priore non abjecta, quia certum est polygamiam\nnon esse prohibitam jure divino, nec res est omnino inusitata\"\n(_Melanthonis Opera_, ed. Bretschneider, ii. 524, 526). \"Nolumus esse\nauctores divortii, cum conjugium cum jure divino non pugnet. Hi, qui\ndiversum pronunciant, terribiliter exaggerant et exasperant jus divinum.\nNos contra exaggeramus in rebus politicis auctoritatem magistratus, quae\nprofecto non est levis, multaque justa sunt propter magistratus\nauctoritatem, quae alioqui in dubium vocantur\" (Melanchthon to Bucer,\nBretschneider, ii. 552).]\n\n[Footnote 217: \"Suadere non possumus ut introducatur publice et velut\nlege sanciatur permissio, plures quam unam uxores ducendi.... Primum\nante omnia cavendum, ne haec res inducatur in orbem ad modum legis, quam\nsequendi libera omnibus sit potestas. Deinde considerare dignetur vestra\ncelsitudo scandalum, nimirum quod Evangelio hostes exclamaturi sint, nos\nsimiles esse Anabaptistis, qui plures simul duxerunt uxores\" (De Wette,\nv. 236. Signed by Luther, Melanchthon, and Bucer).]\n\n[Footnote 218: \"He that would appear wise will not be satisfied with\nanything that others do; he must do something for himself, and that must\nbe better than anything. This fool (Copernicus) wants to overturn the\nwhole science of astronomy. But, as the holy Scriptures tell us, Joshua\ntold the sun to stand still, and not the earth\" (_Table-Talk_, iv.\n575).]\n\n[Footnote 219: \"Das ist die christliche Freiheit, der einige Glaube, der\nda macht, nicht dass wir muessig gehen oder uebel thun moegen, sondern dass\nwir keines Werks beduerfen, die Froemmigkeit und Seligkeit zu erlangen\"\n(_Sermon von der Freiheit_). A Protestant historian, who quotes this\npassage, goes on to say: \"On the other hand, the body must be brought\nunder discipline by every means, in order that it may obey and not\nburden the inner man. Outward servitude, therefore, assists the progress\ntowards internal freedom\" (Bensen, _Geschichte des Bauernkriegs_, 269.)]\n\n[Footnote 220: _Werke_, x. 413.]\n\n[Footnote 221: \"According to Scripture, it is by no means proper that\none who would be a Christian should set himself against his superiors,\nwhether by God's permission they act justly or unjustly. But a Christian\nmust suffer violence and wrong, especially from his superiors.... As the\nemperor continues emperor, and princes, though they transgress all God's\ncommandments, yea, even if they be heathen, so they do even when they do\nnot observe their oath and duty.... Sin does not suspend authority and\nallegiance\" (De Wette, iii. 560).]\n\n[Footnote 222: Ranke, _Reformation_, iii. 183.]\n\n[Footnote 223: Ranke, iv. 7; Juergens, iii. 601.]\n\n[Footnote 224: Newman, _Lectures on Justification_, p. 386.]\n\n[Footnote 225: \"Was durch ordentliche Gewalt geschieht, ist nicht fuer\nAufruhr zu halten\" (Bensen, p. 269; Jarcke, _Studien_, p. 312; Janet,\nii. 40).]\n\n[Footnote 226: \"Princes, and all rulers and governments, however pious\nand God-fearing they may be, cannot be without sin in their office and\ntemporal administration.... They cannot always be so exactly just and\nsuccessful as some wiseacres suppose; therefore they are above all in\nneed of the forgiveness of sins\" (see Kaltenborn, p. 209).]\n\n[Footnote 227: \"Of old, under the Papacy, princes and lords, and all\njudges, were very timid in shedding blood, and punishing robbers,\nmurderers, thieves, and all manner of evil-doers; for they knew not how\nto distinguish a private individual who is not in office from one in\noffice, charged with the duty of punishing.... The executioner had\nalways to do penance, and to apologise beforehand to the convicted\ncriminal for what he was going to do to him, just as if it was sinful\nand wrong.\" \"Thus they were persuaded by monks to be gracious,\nindulgent, and peaceable. But authorities, princes and lords ought not\nto be merciful\" (_Table-Talk_, iv. 159, 160).]\n\n[Footnote 228: \"Den weltlichen Bann sollten Koenige und Kaiser wieder\naufrichten, denn wir koennen ihn jetzt nicht anrichten.... Aber so wir\nnicht koennen die Suende des Lebens bannen und strafen, so bannen wir doch\ndie Suende der Lehre\" (Bruns, _Luther's Predigten_, 63).]\n\n[Footnote 229: \"Wo sie solche Rottengeister wuerden zulassen und leiden,\nso sie es doch wehren und vorkommen koennen, wuerden sie ihre Gewissen\ngraeulich beschweren, und vielleicht nimmermehr widder stillen koennen,\nnicht allein der Seelen halben, die dadurch verfuehrt und verdammt werden\n... sondern auch der gauzen heiligen Kirchen halben\" (De Wette, iv.\n355).]\n\n[Footnote 230: \"Nu ist alle Abgoetterey gegen die Messe ein geringes\" (De\nWette, v. 191; sec. iv. 307)]\n\n[Footnote 231: Bucholtz, iii. 570.]\n\n[Footnote 232: \"Sie aber verachten die Schrift muthwilliglich, darum\nwaeren sie billig aus der einigen Ursach zu stillen, oder nicht zu\nleiden\" (De Wette, iii. 90).]\n\n[Footnote 233: \"Wollen sie aber wie die Juden seyn, nicht Christen\nheissen, noch Kaisers Glieder, sondern sich lassen Christus und Kaisers\nFeinde nennen, wie die Juden; wohlan, so wollen wir's auch leiden, dass\nsie in ihren Synagogen, wie die Juden, verschlossen laestern, so lang sie\nwollen\" (De Wette, iv. 94).]\n\n[Footnote 234: Riffel, _Kirchengeschichte_, ii. 9; _Table-Talk_, iii.\n175.]\n\n[Footnote 235: \"Ego ab initio, cum primum caepi nosse Ciconiam et\nCiconiae factionem, unde hoc totum genus Anabaptistarum exortum est, fui\nstulte clemens. Sentiebant enim et alii haereticos non esse ferro\nopprimendos. Et tunc dux Fridericus vehementer iratus erat Ciconiae: ac\nnisi a nobis tectus esset, fuisset de homine furioso et perdite malo\nsumtum supplicium. Nunc me ejus clementiae non parum poenitet....\nBrentius nimis clemens est\" (Bretschneider, ii. 17, Feb. 1530).]\n\n[Footnote 236: \"Sed objiciunt exemplum nobis periculosum: si haec\npertinent ad magistratus, quoties igitur magistratus judicabit aliquos\nerrare, saeviet in eos. Caesar igitur debet nos opprimere, quoniam ita\njudicat nos errare. Respondeo: certe debet errores et prohibere et\npunire.... Non est enim solius Caesaris cognitio, sicut in urbibus haec\ncognitio non est tantum magistratus prophani, sed est doctorum. Viderit\nigitur magistratus ut recte judicet\" (Bretschneider, ii. 712).\n\"Deliberent igitur principes, non cum tyrannis, non cum pontificibus,\nnon cum hypocritis, monachis aut aliis, sed cum ipsa Evangelii voce, cum\nprobatis scriptoribus\" (Bretschneider, iii. 254).]\n\n[Footnote 237: \"Quare ita sentias, magistratum debere uti summa\nseveritate in coercendis hujusmodi spiritibus.... Sines igitur novis\nexemplis timorem incuti multitudini ... ad haec notae tibi sint causae\nseditionum, quas gladio prohiberi oportet.... Propterea sentio de his\nqui etiamsi non defendunt seditiosos articulos, habent manifeste\nblasphemos, quod interfici a magistratu debeant\" (ii. 17, 18). \"De\nAnabaptistis tulimus hic in genere sententiam: quia constat sectam\ndiabolicam esse, non esse tolerandam: dissipari enim ecclesias per eos,\ncum ipsi nullam habeant certam doctrinam.... Ideo in capita factionum in\nsingulis locis ultima supplicia constituenda esse judicavimus\" (ii.\n549). \"It is clear that it is the duty of secular government to punish\nblasphemy, false doctrine, and heresy, on the bodies of those who are\nguilty of them.... Since it is evident that there are gross errors in\nthe articles of the Anabaptist sect, we conclude that in this case the\nobstinate ought to be punished with death\" (iii. 199). \"Propter hanc\ncausam Deus ordinavit politias ut Evangelium propagari possit ... nec\nrevocamus politiam Moysi, sed lex moralis perpetua est omnium aetatum\n... quandocumque constat doctrinam esse impiam, nihil dubium est quin\nsanior pars Ecclesiae debeat malos pastores removere et abolere impios\ncultus. Et hanc emendationem praecipue adjuvare debent magistratus,\ntanquam potiora membra Ecclesiae\" (iii. 242, 244). \"Thammerus, qui\nMahometicas seu Ethnicas opiniones spargit, vagatur in dioecesi\nMindensi, quem publicis suppliciis adficere debebant.... Evomuit\nblasphemias, quae refutandae sunt non tantum disputatione aut scriptis,\nsed etiam justo officio pii magistratus\" (ix. 125, 131).]\n\n[Footnote 238: \"Voco autem blasphemos qui articulos habent, qui proprie\nnon pertinent ad civilem statum, sed continent [Greek: theorias] ut de\ndivinitate Christi et similes. Etsi enim gradus quidam sunt, tamen huc\netiam refero baptismum infantum.... Quia magistratui commissa est tutela\ntotius legis, quod attinet ad externam disciplinam et externa facta.\nQuare delicta externa contra primam tabulam prohibere ac punire\ndebet.... Quare non solum concessum est, sed etiam mandatum est\nmagistratui, impias doctrinas abolere, et tueri pias in suis ditionibus\"\n(ii. 711). \"Ecclesiastica potestas tantum judicat et excommunicat\nhaereticos, non occidit. Sed potestas civilis debet constituere poenas\net supplicia in haereticos, sicut in blasphemos constituit supplicia....\nNon enim plectitur fides, sed haeresis\" (xii. 697).]\n\n[Footnote 239: \"Notum est etiam, quosdam tetra et [Greek: dysphema]\ndixisse de sanguine Christi, quos puniri oportuit, et propter gloriam\nChristi, et exempli causa\" (viii. 553). \"Argumentatur ille praestigiator\n(Schwenkfeld), verbum externum non esse medium, quo Deus est efficax.\nTalis sophistica principum severitate compescenda erat\" (ix. 579).]\n\n[Footnote 240: \"The office of preacher is distinct from that of\ngovernor, yet both have to contribute to the praise of God. Princes are\nnot only to protect the goods and bodily life of their subjects, but the\nprincipal function is to promote the honour of God, and to prevent\nidolatry and blasphemy\" (iii. 199). \"Errant igitur magistratus, qui\ndivellunt gubernationem a fine, et se tantum pacis ac ventris custodes\nesse existimant.... At si tantum venter curandus esset, quid differrent\nprincipes ab armentariis? Nam longe aliter sentiendum est. Politias\ndivinitus admirabili sapientia et bonitate constitutas esse, non tantum\nad quaerenda et fruenda ventris bona, sed multo magis, ut Deus in\nsocietate innotescat, ut aeterna bona quaerantur\" (iii. 246).]\n\n[Footnote 241: \"Neque illa barbarica excusatio audienda est, leges illas\npertinere ad politiam Mosaicam, non ad nostram. Ut Decalogus ipse ad\nomnes pertinet, ita judex ubique omnia Decalogi officia in externa\ndisciplina tueatur\" (viii. 520).]\n\n[Footnote 242: \"Legi scriptum tuum, in quo refutasti luculenter\nhorrendas Serveti blasphemias, ac filio Dei gratias ago, qui fuit\n[Greek: brabeutes] hujus tui agonis. Tibi quoque Ecclesia et nunc et ad\nposteros gratitudinem debet et debebit. Tuo judicio prorsus adsentior.\nAffirmo etiam, vestros magistratus juste fecisse, quod hominem\nblasphemum, re ordine judicata, interfecerunt\" (Melanchthon to Calvin,\nBretschneider, viii. 362). \"Judico etiam Senatum Genevensem recte\nfecisse, quod hominem pertinacem et non omissurum blasphemias sustulit.\nAc miratus sum, esse, qui severitatem illam improbent\" (viii. 523).\n\"Dedit vero et Genevensis reip. magistratus ante annos quatuor punitae\ninsanabilis blasphemiae adversus filium Dei, sublato Serveto Arragone\npium et memorabile ad omnem posteritatem exemplum\" (ix. 133).]\n\n[Footnote 243: \"Abusus missae per magistratus debet tolli. Non aliter,\natque sustulit aeneum serpentem Ezechias, aut excelsa demolitus est\nJosias\" (i. 480). \"Politicis magistratibus severissime mandatum est, ut\nsuo quisque loco manibus et armis tollant statuas, ad quas fiunt hominum\nconcursus et invocationes, et puniant suppliciis corporum insanabiles,\nqui idolorum cultum pertinaciter retinent, aut blasphemias serunt\" (ix.\n77).]\n\n[Footnote 244: \"If the French and English community at Frankfort shared\nthe errors of Servetus or Thamer, or other enemies of the Symbols, or\nthe errors of the Anabaptists on infant baptism, against the authority\nof the State, etc., I should faithfully advise and strongly recommend\nthat they should be soon driven away; for the civil power is bound to\nprevent and to punish proved blasphemy and sedition. But I find that\nthis community is orthodox in the symbolical articles on the Son of God,\nand in other articles of the Symbol.... If the faith of the citizens in\nevery town were inquired into, what trouble and confusion would not\narise in many countries and towns!\" (ix. 179).]\n\n[Footnote 245: Schmidt, _Philipp Melanchthon_, p. 640. His exhortations\nto the Landgrave to put down the Zwinglians are characteristic: \"The\nZwinglians, without waiting for the Council, persecute the Papists and\nthe Anabaptists; why must it be wrong for others to prohibit their\nindefensible doctrine independent of the Council?\" Philip replied:\n\"Forcibly, to prohibit a doctrine which neither contradicts the articles\nof faith nor encourages sedition, I do not think right.... When Luther\nbegan to write and to preach, he admonished and instructed the\nGovernment that it had no right to forbid books or to prevent preaching,\nand that its office did not extend so far, but that it had only to\ngovern the body and goods.... I had not heard before that the Zwinglians\npersecute the Papists; but if they abolish abuses, it is not unjust, for\nthe Papists wish to deserve heaven by their works, and so blaspheme the\nSon of God. That they should persecute the Anabaptists is also not\nwrong, for their doctrine is in part seditious.\" The divines answered:\n\"If by God's grace our true and necessary doctrine is tolerated as it\nhas hitherto been by the emperor, though reluctantly, we think that we\nought not to prevent it by undertaking the defence of the Zwinglian\ndoctrine, if that should not be tolerated. ... As to the argument that\nwe ought to spare the people while persecuting the leaders, our answer\nis, that it is not a question of persons, but only of doctrine, whether\nit be true or false\" (Correspondence of Brenz and Melanchthon with\nLandgrave Philip of Hesse, Bretschneider, ii. 95, 98, 101).]\n\n[Footnote 246: Hardwicke, _Reformation_, p. 274.]\n\n[Footnote 247: Seidemann, _Thomas Muenzer_, p. 35.]\n\n[Footnote 248: Schenkel, iii. 381.]\n\n[Footnote 249: Heinrich Grosbeck's _Bericht_, ed. Cornelius, 19.]\n\n[Footnote 250: Herzog, _Encyclopaedie fuer protestantische Theologie_, ii.\n418.]\n\n[Footnote 251: Bussierre, _Establissement du Protestantisme en Alsace_,\np. 429.]\n\n[Footnote 252: Baum, _Capito und Butzer_, p. 489.]\n\n[Footnote 253: Baum, p. 492; Erbkam, _Protestantische Sekten_, p. 581.]\n\n[Footnote 254: Ursinus writes to Bullinger: \"Liberavit nos Deus ab\nidolatria: succedit licentia infinita et horribilis divini nominis,\necclesiae doctrinae purioris et sacramentorum prophanatio et sub pedibus\nporcorum et canum, conniventibus atque utinam non defendentibus iis qui\nprohibere suo loco debebant, conculcatio\" (Sudhoff, _Olevianus und\nUrsinus_, p. 340).]\n\n[Footnote 255: \"Adserere audemus, neminem magistratum recte gerere ne\nposse quidem, nisi Christianus sit\" (Zuingli, _Opera_, iii. 296). \"If\nthey shall proceed in an unbrotherly way, and against the ordinance of\nChrist, then let them be deposed, in God's name\" (Schenkel, iii. 362).]\n\n[Footnote 256: Christoffel, _Huldreich Zwingli_, p. 251.]\n\n[Footnote 257: Zwingli's advice to the Protestants of St. Gall, in\nPressel, _Joachim Vadian_, p. 45.]\n\n[Footnote 258: Pestalozzi, _Heinrich Bullinger_, p. 95.]\n\n[Footnote 259: _Ibid._, _Leo Judae_, p. 50.]\n\n[Footnote 260: Pestalozzi, _Heinrich Bullinger_, p. 146.]\n\n[Footnote 261: _Ibid._ p. 149.]\n\n[Footnote 262: _Ibid._ p. 270.]\n\n[Footnote 263: Pestalozzi, _Heinrich Bullinger_, p. 426.]\n\n[Footnote 264: In the year 1555 he writes to Socinus: \"I too am of\nopinion that heretical men must be cut off with the spiritual sword....\nThe Lutherans at first did not understand that sectaries must be\nrestrained and punished, but after the fall of Muenster, when thousands\nof poor misguided men, many of them orthodox, had perished, they were\ncompelled to admit that it is wiser and better for the Government not\nonly to restrain wrong-headed men, but also, by putting to death a few\nthat deserve it, to protect thousands of inhabitants\" (_Ibid._ p. 428).]\n\n[Footnote 265: Herzog, _Leben Oekolampads_, ii 197.]\n\n[Footnote 266: _Ibid._ p. 189.]\n\n[Footnote 267: _Ibid._ p. 206.]\n\n[Footnote 268: Herzog, _Leben Oekolampads_, ii. 195. Herzog finds an\nexcuse for the harsh treatment of the Lutherans at Basel in the still\ngreater severity of the Lutheran Churches against the followers of the\nSwiss reformation (_Ibid._ 213).]\n\n[Footnote 269: Hundeshagen, _Conflikte des Zwinglianismus und\nCalvinismus_, 41.]\n\n[Footnote 270: \"Huc spectat (politia) ... ne idololatria, ne in Dei\nnomen sacrilegia, ne adversus ejus veritatem blasphemiae aliaeque\nreligionis offensiones publice emergant ac in populum spargantur....\nPoliticam ordinationem probo, quae in hoc incumbit, ne vera religio,\nquae Dei lege continetur, palam, publicisque sacrilegiis impune\nvioletur\" (_Institutio Christianae Religionis_, ed. Tholuck, ii. 477).\n\"Hoc ergo summopere requiritur a regibus, ut gladio quo praediti sunt\nutuntur ad cultum Dei asserendum\" (_Praelectiones in Prophetas, Opera_,\nv. 233, ed. 1667).]\n\n[Footnote 271: \"Huic etiam colligere promptum est, quam stulta fuerit\nimaginatio eorum qui volebant usum gladii tollere e mundo, Evangelii\npraetextu. Scimus Anabaptistas fuisse tumultuatos, quasi totus ordo\npoliticus repugnaret Christi regno, quia regnum Christi continetur sola\ndoctrina; deinde nulla futura sit vis. Hoc quidem verum esset, si\nessemus in hoc mundo angeli: sed quemadmodum jam dixi, exiguus est\npiorum numerus: ideo necesse est reliquam turbam cohiberi violento\nfreno: quia permixti sunt filii Dei vel saevis belluis, vel vulpibus et\nfraudulentis hominibus\" (_Pr. in Michaeam_, v. 310). \"In quo non suam\nmodo inscitiam, sed diabolicum fastum produnt, dum perfectionem sibi\narrogant; cujus ne centesima quidem pars in illis conspicitur\"\n(_Institutio_, ii. 478).]\n\n[Footnote 272: \"Tota igitur excellentia, tota dignitas, tota potentia\nEcclesiae debet huc referri, ut omnia subjaceant Deo, et quicquid erit\nin gentibus hoc totum sit sacrum, ut scilicet cultus Dei tam apud\nvictores quam apud victos vigeat\" (_Pr. in Michaeam_, v. 317).]\n\n[Footnote 273: \"Ita tollitur offensio, quae multos imperitos fallit, dum\nmetuunt ne hoc praetextu ad saeviendum armentur Papae carnifices.\"\nCalvin was warned by experience of the imprudence of Luther's language.\n\"In Gallis proceres in excusanda saevitia immani allegant autoritatem\nLutheri\" (Melanchthon. _Opera_, v. 176).]\n\n[Footnote 274: \"Vous avez deux especes de mutins qui se sont eslevez\nentre le roy et l'estat du royaume: Les uns sont gens fantastiques, qui\nsoubs couleur de l'evangile vouldroient mettre tout en confusion. Les\naultres sont gens obstines aux superstitions de l'Antechrist de Rome.\nTous ensemble meritent bien d'estre reprimes par le glayve qui vous est\ncommis, veu qu'ils s'attaschent non seulement au roy, mais a Dieu qui\nl'a assis au siege royal\" (Calvin to Somerset, Oct. 22, 1540: _Lettres\nde Calvin_, ed. Bonnet, i. 267. See also Henry, _Leben Calvins_, ii.\nAppend. 30).]\n\n[Footnote 275: \"Abdicant enim se potestate terreni principes dum\ninsurgunt contra Deum: imo indigni sunt qui censeantur in hominum\nnumero. Potius ergo conspuere oportet in ipsorum capita, quam illis\nparere, ubi ita proterviunt ut velint etiam spoliare Deum jure suo, et\nquasi occupare solium ejus, acsi possent eum a coelo detrahere\" (_Pr. in\nDanielem_, v. 91).]\n\n[Footnote 276: \"Quant au serment qu'on vous a contraincte de faire,\ncomme vous avez failli et offense Dieu en le faisant, aussi n'estes-vous\ntenue de le garder\" (Calvin to the Duchess of Ferrara, _Bonnet_, ii.\n338). She had taken an oath, at her husband's death, that she would not\ncorrespond with Calvin.]\n\n[Footnote 277: \"In aulis regum videmus primas teneri a bestiis. Nam\nhodie, ne repetamus veteres historias, ut reges fere omnes fatui sunt ac\nbruti, ita etiam sunt quasi equi et asini brutorum animalium.... Reges\nsunt hodie fere mancipia\" (_Pr. in Danielem_, v. 82). \"Videmus enim ut\nhodie quoque pro sua libidine commoveant totum orbem principes; quia\nprodunt alii aliis innoxios populus, et exercent foedam nundinationem,\ndum quisque commodum suum venatur, et sine ullo pudore, tantum ut augeat\nsuam potentiam, alios tradit in manum inimici\" (_Pr. in Nahum_, v. 363).\n\"Hodie pudet reges aliquid prae se ferre humanum, sed omnes gestus\naccommodant ad tyrannidem\" (_Pr. in Jeremiam_, v. 257).]\n\n[Footnote 278: \"Sur ce que je vous avais allegue, quo David nous\ninstruict par son exemple de hair les ennemis de Dieu, vous respondez\nque c'estoit pour ce temps-la duquel sous la loi de rigueur il estoit\npermis de hair les ennemis. Or, madame, ceste glose seroit pour\nrenverser toute l'Escriture, et partant il la fault fuir comme une peste\nmortelle.... Combien que j'aye tousjours prie Dieu de luy faire mercy,\nsi est-ce que j'ay souvent desire que Dieu mist la main sur luy (Guise)\npour en deslivrer son Eglise, s'il ne le vouloit convertir\" (Calvin to\nthe Duchess of Ferrara, _Bonnet_, ii. 551). Luther was in this respect\nequally unscrupulous: \"This year we must pray Duke Maurice to death, we\nmust kill him with our prayers; for he will be an evil man\" (MS. quoted\nin Doellinger, _Reformation_, iii, 266).]\n\n[Footnote 279: \"Quod de praepostero nostrorum fervore scribis,\nverissimum est, neque tamen ulla occurrit moderandi ratio, quia sanis\nconsiliis non obtemperant. Passim denuntio, si judex essem me non minus\nsevere in rabioso, istos impetus vindicaturum, quam rex suis edictis\nmandat. Pergendum nihilominus, quando nos Deus voluit stultis esse\ndebitores\" (Calvin to Beza; Henry, _Leben Calvins_, iii. Append. 164).]\n\n[Footnote 280: \"Il n'a tenu qu'a moi que, devant la guerre, gens de\nfaict et d'execution ne se soyent efforcez de l'exterminer du monde\n(Guise) lesquels ont este retenus par ma seule exhortation.\"--_Bonnet_,\nii. 553.]\n\n[Footnote 281: \"Hoc nobis si assidue ob animos et oculos obversetur,\neodem decreto constitui etiam nequissimos reges, quo regum auctoritas\nstatuitur; nunquam in animum nobis seditiosae illae cogitationes\nvenient, tractandum esse pro meritis regem nec aequum esse, ut subditos\nei nos praestemus, qui vicissim regem nobis se non praestet.... De\nprivatis hominibus semper loquor. Nam si qui nunc sint populares\nmagistratus ad moderandam regum libidinem constituti (quales olim erant\n... ephori ... tribuni ... demarchi: et qua etiam forte potestate, ut\nnunc res habent, funguntur in singulis regnis tres ordines, quum\nprimarios conventus peragunt) ... illos ferocienti regum licentiae pro\nofficio intercedere non veto\" (_Institutio_, ii. 493, 495).]\n\n[Footnote 282: \"Quum ergo ita licentiose omnia sibi permittent\n(Donatistae), volebant tamen impune manere sua scelera: et in primis\ntenebant hoc principium: non esse poenas sumendas, si quis ab aliis\ndissideret in religionis doctrina: quemadmodum hodie videmus quosdam de\nhac re nimis cupide contendere. Certum est quid cupiant. Nam si quis\nipsos respiciat, sunt impii Dei contemptores: saltem vellent nihil\ncertum esse in religione; ideo labefactare, et quantum in se est etiam\nconvellere nituntur omnia pietatis principia. Ut ergo liceat ipsis\nevomere virus suum, ideo tantopere litigant pro impunitate, et negant\npoenas de haereticis et blasphemis sumendas esse\" (_Pr. in Danielem_, v.\n51).]\n\n[Footnote 283: \"Defensio Orthodoxae Fidei ... ubi ostenditur Haereticos\njure gladii coercendos esse,\" 1554.]\n\n[Footnote 284: \"Non modo liberum esse magistratibus poenas sumere de\ncoelestis doctrinae corruptoribus, sed divinitus esse mandatum, ut\npestiferis erroribus impunitatem dare nequeant, quin desciscant ab\nofficii sui fide.... Nunc vero quisquis haereticis et blasphemis injuste\npaenam infligi contenderet, sciens et volens se obstringet blasphemiae\nreatu.... Ubi a suis fundamentis convellitur religio, detestandae in\nDeum blasphemiae proferuntur, impiis et pestiferis dogmatibus in exitium\nrapiuntur animae; denique ubi palam defectio ab unico Deo puraque\ndoctrina tentatur, ad extremum illud remedium descendere necesse\" (see\nSchenkel, iii. 389; Dyer, _Life of Calvin_, p. 354; Henry, iii. 234).]\n\n[Footnote 285: _De Haereticis an sint persequendi_, Magdeburgi, 1554.\nChataillon, to whom it is generally attributed, was not the author (see\nHeppe, _Theodor Beza_, p. 37).]\n\n[Footnote 286: Hallam, _Literature of Europe_, ii. 81; Schlosser, _Leben\ndes Beza_, p. 55. This is proved by the following passage from the\ndedication: \"This I say not to favour the heretics, whom I abhor, but\nbecause there are here two dangerous rocks to be avoided. In the first\nplace, that no man should be deemed a heretic when he is not ... and\nthat the real rebel be distinguished from the Christian who, by\nfollowing the teaching and example of his Master, necessarily causes\nseparation from the wicked and unbelieving. The other danger is, lest\nthe real heretics be not more severely punished than the discipline of\nthe Church requires\" (Baum, _Theodor Beza_, i. 215).]\n\n[Footnote 287: \"Multis piis hominibus in Gallia exustis grave passim\napud Germanos odium ignes illi excitaverant, sparsi sunt, ejus\nrestinguendi causa, improbi ac mendaces libelli, non alios tam\ncrudeliter tractari, quam Anabaptistas ac turbulentos homines, qui\nperversis deliriis non religionem modo sed totum ordinem politicum\nconvellerent.... Haec mihi edendae Institutionis causa fuit, primum ut\nab injusta contumelia vindicarem fratres meos, quorum mors pretiosa erat\nin conspectu Domini; deinde quum multis miseris eadem visitarent\nsupplicia, pro illis dolor saltem aliquis et sollicitudo exteras gentes\ntangeret\" (_Praefatio in Psalmos._ See \"Historia Litteraria de Calvini\nInstitutione.\" in _Scrinium Antiquarium_, ii. 452).]\n\n[Footnote 288: Baum, i. 206. \"Telles gens,\" says Calvin, \"seroient\ncontents qu'il n'y eust ne loy, ne bride au monde. Voila pourquoy ils\nont basti ce beau libvre _De non comburendis Haereticis_, ou ils out\nfalsifie les noms tant des villes que des personnes, non pour aultre\ncause sinon pource que le dit livre est farcy de blasphemes\ninsupportables\" (Bonnet, ii. 18).]\n\n[Footnote 289: _De Haereticis a civili Magistratu puniendis_, 1554.]\n\n[Footnote 290: \"Absit autem a nobis, ut in eos, qui vel simplicitate\npeccant, sine aliorum pernicie et insigni blasphemia, vel in explicando\nquopiam Scripturae loco dissident a recepta opinione, magistratum\narmemus\" (_Tractatus Theologici_, i. 95).]\n\n[Footnote 291: This was sometimes the practice in Catholic countries,\nwhere heresy was equivalent to treason. Duke William of Bavaria ordered\nobstinate Anabaptists to be burnt; those who recanted to be beheaded.\n\"Welcher revocir, den soll man koepfen; welcher nicht revocir, den soll\nman brennen\" (Joerg, p. 717).]\n\n[Footnote 292: \"Ex quibus omnibus una conjunctio efficitur, istos quibus\nhaeretici videntur non esse puniendi, opinionem in Ecclesiam Dei conari\nlonge omnium pestilentissimam invehere et ex diametro repugnantem\ndoctrinae primum a Deo Patre proditae, deinde a Christo instauratae, ab\nuniversa denique Ecclesia orthodoxa perpetuo consensu usurpatae, ut mihi\nquidem magis absurde facere videantur quam si sacrilegas aut parricidas\npuniendos negarent, quum sint istis omnibus haeretici infinitis partibus\ndeteriores\" (_Tract. Theol._ i. 143).]\n\n[Footnote 293: \"Verum est quod correctione non exspectata Ananiam et\nSapphiram occidit Petrus. Quia Spiritus Sanctus tunc maxime vigens, quem\nspreverant, docebat esse incorrigibiles, in malitia obstinatos. Hoc\ncrimen est morte simpliciter dignum et apud Deum et apud homines. In\naliis autem criminibus, ubi Spiritus Sanctus speciale quid non docet,\nubi non est inveterata malitia, aut obstinatio certa non apparet aut\natrocitas magna, correctionem per alias castigationes sperare potius\ndebemus\" (Servetus, _Restitutio Christianismi_, 656; Henry, iii. 235).]\n\n[Footnote 294: \"Nam si venerit, modo valeat mea authoritas, vivum exire\nnunquam patiar\" (Calvin to Farel, in Henry, iii. Append. 65; Audin, _Vie\nde Calvin_, ii. 314; Dyer, 544).]\n\n[Footnote 295: \"Spero capitale saltem fore judicium; poenae vero\natrocitatem remitti cupio\" (Calvin to Farel, Henry, iii. 189). Dr. Henry\nmakes no attempt to clear Calvin of the imputation of having caused the\ndeath of Servetus. Nevertheless he proposed, some years later, that the\nthree-hundredth anniversary of the execution should be celebrated in the\nChurch of Geneva by a demonstration. \"It ought to declare itself in a\nbody, in a manner worthy of our principles, admitting that in past times\nthe authorities of Geneva were mistaken, loudly proclaiming toleration,\nwhich is truly the crown of our Church, and paying due honour to Calvin,\nbecause he had no hand in the business (parcequ'il n'a pas trempe dans\ncette affaire), of which he has unjustly borne the whole burden.\" The\nimpudence of this declaration is surpassed by the editor of the French\nperiodical from which we extract it. He appends to the words in our\nparenthesis the following note: \"We underline in order to call attention\nto this opinion of Dr. Henry, who is so thoroughly acquainted with the\nwhole question\" (_Bulletin de la Societe de l'Histoire du Protestantisme\nFrancais_, ii. 114).]\n\n[Footnote 296: \"Qui scripserunt de non plectendis haereticis, semper\nmihi visi sunt non parum errare\" (Farel to Blaarer, Henry, iii. 202).\nDuring the trial he wrote to Calvin: \"If you desire to diminish the\nhorrible punishment, you will act as a friend towards your most\ndangerous enemy. If I were to seduce anybody from the true faith, I\nshould consider myself worthy of death; I cannot judge differently of\nanother than of myself\" (Schmidt, _Farel und Viret_, p. 33).\n\nBefore sentence was pronounced Bullinger wrote to Beza: \"Quid vero\namplissimus Senatus Genevensis ageret cum blasphemo illo nebulone\nServeto. Si sapit et officium suum facit, caedit, ut totus orbis videat\nGenevam Christi gloriam cupere servatam\" (Baum, i. 204). With reference\nto Socinus he wrote: \"Sentio ego spirituali gladio abscindendos esse\nhomines haereticos\" (Henry, iii. 225).\n\nPeter Martyr Vermili also gave in his adhesion to Calvin's policy: \"De\nServeto Hispano, quid aliud dicam non habeo, nisi eum fuisse genuinum\nDiaboli filium, cujus pestifera et detestanda doctrina undique\nprofliganda est, neque magistratus, qui de illo supplicium extremum\nsumpsit, accusandus est, cum emendationis nulla indicia in eo possent\ndeprehendi, illiusque blasphemiae omnino intolerabiles essent\" (_Loci\nCommunes_, 1114. See Schlosser, _Leben des Beza und des Peter Martyr\nVermili_, 512).\n\nZanchi, who at the instigation of Bullinger also published a treatise,\n_De Haereticis Coercendis_, says of Beza's work: \"Non poterit non\nprobari summopere piis omnibus. Satis superque respondit quidem ille\nnovis istis academicis, ita ut supervacanea et inutilis omnino videatur\nmea tractatio\" (Baum, i. 232).]\n\n[Footnote 297: \"The trial of Servetus,\" says a very ardent Calvinist,\n\"is illegal only in one point--the crime, if crime there be, had not\nbeen committed at Geneva; but long before the Councils had usurped the\nunjust privilege of judging strangers stopping at Geneva, although the\ncrimes they were accused of had not been committed there\" (Haag, _La\nFrance Protestante_, iii. 129).]\n\n[Footnote 298: _Literature of Europe_, ii. 82.]\n\n[Footnote 299: This is the ground taken by two Dutch divines in answer\nto the consultation of John of Nassau in 1579: \"Neque in imperio, neque\nin Galliis, neque in Belgio speranda esset unquam libertas in externo\nreligionis exercitio nostris ... si non diversarum religionum exercitia\nin una eademque provincia toleranda.... Sic igitur gladio adversus nos\narmabimus Pontificios, si hanc hypothesin tuebimur, quod exercitium\nreligionis alteri parti nullum prorsus relinqui debeat\" (_Scrinium\nAntiquarium_, i. 335).]\n\n\n\n\nVI\n\nPOLITICAL THOUGHTS ON THE CHURCH[300]\n\n\nThere is, perhaps, no stronger contrast between the revolutionary times\nin which we live and the Catholic ages, or even the period of the\nReformation, than in this: that the influence which religious motives\nformerly possessed is now in a great measure exercised by political\nopinions. As the theory of the balance of power was adopted in Europe as\na substitute for the influence of religious ideas, incorporated in the\npower of the Popes, so now political zeal occupies the place made vacant\nby the decline of religious fervour, and commands to an almost equal\nextent the enthusiasm of men. It has risen to power at the expense of\nreligion, and by reason of its decline, and naturally regards the\ndethroned authority with the jealousy of a usurper. This revolution in\nthe relative position of religious and political ideas was the\ninevitable consequence of the usurpation by the Protestant State of the\nfunctions of the Church, and of the supremacy which, in the modern\nsystem of government, it has assumed over her. It follows also that the\nfalse principles by which religious truth was assailed have been\ntransferred to the political order, and that here, too, Catholics must\nbe prepared to meet them; whilst the objections made to the Church on\ndoctrinal grounds have lost much of their attractiveness and effect, the\nenmity she provokes on political grounds is more intense. It is the same\nold enemy with a new face. No reproach is more common, no argument\nbetter suited to the temper of these times, than those which are\nfounded on the supposed inferiority or incapacity of the Church in\npolitical matters. As her dogma, for instance, is assailed from opposite\nsides,--as she has had to defend the divine nature of Christ against the\nEbionites, and His humanity against Docetism, and was attacked both on\nthe plea of excessive rigorism and excessive laxity (Clement Alex.,\n_Stromata_, iii. 5),--so in politics she is arraigned on behalf of the\npolitical system of every phase of heresy. She was accused of favouring\nrevolutionary principles in the time of Elizabeth and James I., and of\nabsolutist tendencies under James II. and his successors. Since\nProtestant England has been divided into two great political parties,\neach of these reproaches has found a permanent voice in one of them.\nWhilst Tory writers affirm that the Catholic religion is the enemy of\nall conservatism and stability, the Liberals consider it radically\nopposed to all true freedom.\n\n   \"What are we to think,\" says the _Edinburgh Review_ (vol. ciii. p.\n   586), \"of the penetration or the sincerity of a man who professes to\n   study and admire the liberties of England and the character of her\n   people, but who does not see that English freedom has been nurtured\n   from the earliest times by resistance to Papal authority, and\n   established by the blessing of a reformed religion? That is, under\n   Heaven, the basis of all the rights we possess; and the weight we\n   might otherwise be disposed to concede to M. de Montalembert's\n   opinions on England is materially lessened by the discovery that,\n   after all, he would, if he had the power, place this free country\n   under that spiritual bondage which broods over the empires of Austria\n   or of Spain.\"\n\nOn the other hand, let us hearken to the Protestant eloquence of the\n_Quarterly Review_ (vol. xcii. p. 41):--\n\n   Tyranny, fraud, base adulation, total insensibility, not only to the\n   worth of human freedom, but to the majesty of law and the sacredness\n   of public and private right; these are the malignant and deadly\n   features which we see stamped upon the conduct of the Roman\n   hierarchy.\n\nBesides which, we have the valuable opinion of Lord Derby, which no\nCatholic, we should suppose, east of the Shannon has forgotten, that\nCatholicism is \"religiously corrupt, and politically dangerous.\" Lord\nMacaulay tells us that it exclusively promoted the power of the Crown;\nRanke, that it favours revolution and regicide. Whilst the Belgian and\nSardinian Liberals accuse the Church of being the enemy of\nconstitutional freedom, the celebrated Protestant statesman, Stahl,\ntaunts her with the reproach of being the sole support and pillar of the\nBelgian constitution. Thus every error pronounces judgment on itself\nwhen it attempts to apply its rules to the standard of truth.\n\nAmong Catholics the state of opinion on these questions, whether it be\nconsidered the result of unavoidable circumstances, or a sign of\ningenious accommodation, or a thing to be deplored, affords at least a\nglaring refutation of the idea that we are united, for good or for evil,\nin one common political system. The Church is vindicated by her\ndefenders, according to their individual inclinations, from the opposite\nfaults imputed to her; she is lauded, according to circumstances, for\nthe most contradictory merits, and her authority is invoked in exclusive\nsupport of very various systems. O'Connell, Count de Montalembert,\nFather Ventura, proclaim her liberal, constitutional, not to say\ndemocratic, character; whilst such writers as Bonald and Father\nTaparelli associate her with the cause of absolute government. Others\nthere are, too, who deny that the Church has a political tendency or\npreference of any kind; who assert that she is altogether independent\nof, and indifferent to, particular political institutions, and, while\ninsensible to their influence, seeks to exercise no sort of influence\nover them. Each view may be plausibly defended, and the inexhaustible\narsenal of history seems to provide impartially instances in\ncorroboration of each. The last opinion can appeal to the example of the\nApostles and the early Christians, for whom, in the heathen empire, the\nonly part was unconditional obedience. This is dwelt upon by the early\napologists: \"Oramus etiam pro imperatoribus, pro ministris eorum et\npotestatibus, pro statu saeculi, pro rerum quiete, pro mora finis.\"[301]\nIt has the authority, too, of those who thought with St. Augustine that\nthe State had a sinful origin and character: \"Primus fuit terrenae\ncivitatis conditor fratricida.\"[302] The Liberals, at the same time, are\nstrong in the authority of many scholastic writers, and of many of the\nolder Jesuit divines, of St. Thomas and Suarez, Bellarmine, and Mariana.\nThe absolutists, too, countenanced by Bossuet and the Gallican Church,\nand quoting amply from the Old Testament, can point triumphantly to the\nmajority of Catholic countries in modern times. All these arguments are\nat the same time serviceable to our adversaries; and those by which one\nobjection is answered help to fortify another.\n\nThe frequent recurrence of this sort of argument which appears to us as\ntreacherous for defence as it is popular as a weapon of attack, shows\nthat no very definite ideas prevail on the subject, and makes it\ndoubtful whether history, which passes sentence on so many theories, is\naltogether consistent with any of these. Nevertheless it is obviously an\ninquiry of the greatest importance, and one on which controversy can\nnever entirely be set at rest; for the relation of the spiritual and the\nsecular power is, like that of speculation and revelation, of religion\nand nature, one of those problems which remain perpetually open, to\nreceive light from the meditations and experience of all ages, and the\ncomplete solution of which is among the objects, and would be the end,\nof all history.\n\nAt a time when the whole system of ecclesiastical government was under\ndiscussion, and when the temporal power was beginning to predominate\nover the Church in France, the greatest theologian of the age made an\nattempt to apply the principles of secular polity to the Church.\nAccording to Gerson (_Opera_, ii. 254), the fundamental forms into which\nAristotle divides all government recur in the ecclesiastical system. The\nroyal power is represented in the Papacy, the aristocracy by the\ncollege of cardinals, whilst the councils form an ecclesiastical\ndemocracy (_timocratia_). Analogous to this is the idea that the\nconstitution of the Church served as the model of the Christian States,\nand that the notion of representation, for instance, was borrowed from\nit. But it is not by the analogy of her own forms that the Church has\ninfluenced those of the State; for in reality there is none subsisting\nbetween them, and Gerson's adoption of a theory of Grecian origin proves\nthat he scarcely understood the spirit of that mediaeval polity which, in\nhis own country especially, was already in its decay. For not only is\nthe whole system of government, whether we consider its origin, its end,\nor its means absolutely and essentially different, but the temporal\nnotion of power is altogether unknown in the Church. \"Ecclesia subjectos\nnon habet ut servos, sed ut filios.\"[303] Our Lord Himself drew the\ndistinction: \"Reges gentium dominantur eorum; et qui potestatem habent\nsuper eos, benefici vocantur. Vos autem non sic: sed qui major est in\nvobis, fiat sicut minor; et qui praedecessor, sicut minor\" (Luc. xxii.\n25, 26). The supreme authority is not the will of the rulers, but the\nlaw of the Church, which binds those who are its administrators as\nstrictly as those who have only to obey it. No human laws were ever\ndevised which could so thoroughly succeed in making the arbitrary\nexercise of power impossible, as that prodigious system of canon law\nwhich is the ripe fruit of the experience and the inspiration of\neighteen hundred years. Nothing can be more remote from the political\nnotions of monarchy than the authority of the Pope. With even less\njustice can it be said that there is in the Church an element of\naristocracy, the essence of which is the possession of hereditary\npersonal privileges. An aristocracy of merit and of office cannot, in a\npolitical sense, legitimately bear the name. By baptism all men are\nequal before the Church. Yet least of all can anything be detected\ncorresponding to the democratic principle, by which all authority\nresides in the mass of individuals, and which gives to each one equal\nrights. All authority in the Church is delegated, and recognises no such\nthing as natural rights.\n\nThis confusion of the ideas belonging to different orders has been\nproductive of serious and dangerous errors. Whilst heretics have raised\nthe episcopate to a level with the papacy, the priesthood with the\nepiscopate, the laity with the clergy, impugning successively the\nprimacy, the episcopal authority, and the sacramental character of\norders, the application of ideas derived from politics to the system of\nthe Church led to the exaggeration of the papal power in the period\nimmediately preceding the Reformation, to the claim of a permanent\naristocratic government by the Council of Basel, and to the democratic\nextravagance of the Observants in the fourteenth century.\n\nIf in the stress of conflicting opinions we seek repose and shelter in\nthe view that the kingdom of God is not of this world; that the Church,\nbelonging to a different order, has no interest in political forms,\ntolerates them all, and is dangerous to none; if we try to rescue her\nfrom the dangers of political controversy by this method of retreat and\nevasion, we are compelled to admit her inferiority, in point of temporal\ninfluence, to every other religious system. Every other religion\nimpresses its image on the society that professes it, and the government\nalways follows the changes of religion. Pantheism and Polytheism,\nJudaism and Islamism, Protestantism, and even the various Protestant as\nwell as Mahometan sects, call forth corresponding social and political\nforms. All power is from God, and is exercised by men in His stead. As\nmen's notions are, therefore, in respect to their position towards God,\nsuch must their notion of temporal power and obedience also be. The\nrelation of man to man corresponds with his relations to God--most of\nall his relations towards the direct representative of God.\n\nThe view we are discussing is one founded on timidity and a desire of\npeace. But peace is not a good great enough to be purchased by such\nsacrifices. We must be prepared to do battle for our religious system in\nevery other sphere as well as in that of doctrine. Theological error\naffects men's ideas on all other subjects, and we cannot accept in\npolitics the consequences of a system which is hateful to us in its\nreligious aspect. These questions cannot be decided by mere reasoning,\nbut we may obtain some light by inquiring of the experience of history;\nour only sure guide is the example of the Church herself.\n\"Insolentissima est insania, non modo disputare, contra id quod videmus\nuniversam ecclesiam credere sed etiam contra id quod videmus eam facere.\nFides enim ecclesiae non modo regula est fidei nostrae, sed etiam\nactiones ipsius actionum nostrarum, consuetudo ipsius consuetudinis quam\nobservare debemus.\"[304]\n\nThe Church which our Lord came to establish had a twofold mission to\nfulfil. Her system of doctrine, on the one hand, had to be defined and\nperpetually maintained. But it was also necessary that it should prove\nitself more than a mere matter of theory,--that it should pass into\npractice, and command the will as well as the intellect of men. It was\nnecessary not only to restore the image of God in man, but to establish\nthe divine order in the world. Religion had to transform the public as\nwell as the private life of nations, to effect a system of public right\ncorresponding with private morality and without which it is imperfect\nand insecure. It was to exhibit and confirm its victory and to\nperpetuate its influence by calling into existence, not only works of\nprivate virtue, but institutions which are the product of the whole life\nof nations, and bear an unceasing testimony to their religious\nsentiments. The world, instead of being external to the Church, was to\nbe adopted by her and imbued with her ideas. The first, the doctrinal or\nintellectual part of the work, was chiefly performed in the Roman\nempire, in the midst of the civilisation of antiquity and of that\nunparalleled intellectual excitement which followed the presence of\nChrist on earth. There the faith was prepared for the world whilst the\nworld was not yet ready to receive it. The empire in which was\nconcentrated all the learning and speculation of ancient times was by\nits intellectual splendour, and in spite, we might even say by reason,\nof its moral depravity, the fit scene of the intellectual establishment\nof Christianity. For its moral degradation ensured the most violent\nantipathy and hostility to the new faith; while the mental cultivation\nof the age ensured a very thorough and ingenious opposition, and\nsupplied those striking contrasts which were needed for the full\ndiscussion and vigorous development of the Christian system. Nowhere\nelse, and at no other period, could such advantages have been found.\n\nBut for the other, equally essential part of her work the Church met\nwith an insurmountable obstacle, which even the official conversion of\nthe empire and all the efforts of the Christian emperors could not\nremove. This obstacle resided not so much in the resistance of paganism\nas a religion, as in the pagan character of the State. It was from a\ncertain political sagacity chiefly that the Romans, who tolerated all\nreligions,[305] consistently opposed that religion which threatened\ninevitably to revolutionise a state founded on a heathen basis. It\nappeared from the first a pernicious superstition (\"exitiabilem\nsuperstitionem,\" Tacit. _Annal._ xv. 44), that taught its followers to\nbe bad subjects (\"exuere patriam,\" Tacitus, _Hist._ v. 5), and to be\nconstantly dissatisfied (\"quibus praesentia semper tempora cum enormi\nlibertate displicent,\" Vopiscus, _Vit. Saturn._ 7). This hostility\ncontinued in spite of the protestations of every apologist, and of the\nsubmissiveness and sincere patriotism of the early Christians. They were\nso far from recognising what their enemies so vaguely felt, that the\nempire could not stand in the presence of the new faith, that it was the\ncommon belief amongst them, founded perhaps on the words of St. Paul, 2\nThess. ii. 7,[306] that the Roman empire would last to the end of the\nworld.[307]\n\nThe persecution of Julian was caused by the feeling of the danger which\nmenaced the pagan empire from the Christian religion. His hostility was\nnot founded on his attachment to the old religion of Rome, which he did\nnot attempt to save. He endeavoured to replace it by a new system which\nwas to furnish the State with new vigour to withstand the decay of the\nold paganism and the invasion of Christianity. He felt that the old\nreligious ideas in which the Roman State had grown up had lost their\npower, and that Rome could only be saved by opposing at all hazards the\nnew ideas. He was inspired rather with a political hatred of\nChristianity than with a religious love of paganism. Consequently\nChristianity was the only religion he could not tolerate. This was the\nbeginning of the persecution of the Church on principles of liberalism\nand religious toleration, on the plea of political necessity, by men who\nfelt that the existing forms of the State were incompatible with her\nprogress. It is with the same feeling of patriotic aversion for the\nChurch that Symmachus says (_Epist._ x. 61): \"We demand the restoration\nof that religion which has so long been beneficial to the State ... of\nthat worship which has subdued the universe to our laws, of those\nsacrifices which repulsed Hannibal from our walls and the Gauls from the\nCapitol.\"\n\nVery soon after the time of Constantine it began to appear that the\noutward conversion of the empire was a boon of doubtful value to\nreligion. \"Et postquam ad Christianos principes venerint, potentia\nquidem et divitiis major sed virtutibus minor facta est,\" says St.\nJerome (in _Vita Malchi_). The zeal with which the emperors applied the\nsecular arm for the promotion of Christianity was felt to be\nincompatible with its spirit and with its interest as well. \"Religion,\"\nsays Lactantius (_Inst. Div._ v. 19), \"is to be defended by exhorting,\nnot by slaying, not by severity, but by patience; not by crime, but by\nfaith: _... nihil enim est tam voluntarium quam religio_.\"[308] \"Deus,\"\nsays St. Hilary of Poitiers (\"ad Constantium,\" _Opp._ i. p. 1221 C),\n\"obsequio non eget necessario, non requirit coactam confessionem.\"[309]\nSt. Athanasius and St. John Chrysostom protest in like manner against\nthe intemperate proselytism of the day.[310] For the result which\nfollowed the general adoption of Christianity threw an unfavourable\nlight on the motives which had caused it. It became evident that the\nheathen world was incapable of being regenerated, that the weeds were\nchoking the good seed. The corruption increased in the Church to such a\ndegree that the Christians, unable to divest themselves of the Roman\nnotion of the _orbis terrarum_, deemed the end of the world at hand. St.\nAugustine (_sermo_ cv.) rebukes this superstitious fear: \"Si non manet\ncivitas quae nos carnaliter genuit, manet quae nos spiritualiter genuit.\nNumquid (Dominus) dormitando aedificium suum perdidit, aut non\ncustodiendo hostes admisit?... Quid expavescis quia pereunt regna\nterrena? Ideo tibi coeleste promissum est, ne cum terrenis perires....\nTransient quae fecit ipse Deus; quanto citius quod condidit Romulus....\nNon ergo deficiamus, fratres: finis erit terrenis omnibus regnis.\"[311]\nBut even some of the fathers themselves were filled with despair at the\nspectacle of the universal demoralisation: \"Totius mundi una vox\nChristus est ... Horret animus temporum nostrorum ruinas persequi....\nRomanus orbis ruit, et tamen cervix nostra erecta non flectitur....\nNostris peccatis barbari fortes sunt. Nostris vitiis Romanus superatur\nexercitus.... Nec amputamus causas morbi, ut morbus pariter\nauferatur.... Orbis terrarum ruit, in nobis peccata non ruunt.\"[312] St.\nAmbrose announces the end still more confidently: \"Verborum coelestium\nnulli magis quam nos testes sumus, quos mundi finis invenit.... Quia in\noccasu saeculi sumus, praecedunt quaedam aegritudines mundi.\"[313] Two\ngenerations later Salvianus exclaims: \"Quid est aliud paene omnis coetus\nChristianorum quam sentina vitiorum?\"[314] And St. Leo declares, \"Quod\ntemporibus nostris auctore diabolo sic vitiata sunt omnia, ut paene\nnihil sit quod absque idolatria transigatur.\"[315]\n\nWhen, early in the fifth century, the dismemberment of the Western\nempire commenced, it was clear that Christianity had not succeeded in\nreforming the society and the polity of the ancient world. It had\narrested for a time the decline of the empire, but after the Arian\nseparation it could not prevent its fall. The Catholics could not\ndissociate the interests of the Church and those of the Roman State, and\nlooked with patriotic as well as religious horror at the barbarians by\nwhom the work of destruction was done. They could not see that they had\ncome to build up as well as to destroy, and that they supplied a field\nfor the exercise of all that influence which had failed among the\nRomans. It was very late before they understood that the world had run\nbut half its course; that a new skin had been prepared to contain the\nnew wine; and that the barbarous tribes were to justify their claim to\nthe double inheritance of the faith and of the power of Rome. There were\ntwo principal things which fitted them for their vocation. The Romans\nhad been unable to be the instruments of the social action of\nChristianity on account of their moral depravity. It was precisely for\nthose virtues in which they were most deficient that their barbarous\nenemies were distinguished. Salvianus expresses this in the following\nwords (_De Gubern. Dei_, vii. 6): \"Miramur si terrae ... nostrorum\nomnium a Deo barbaris datae sunt, cum eas quae Romani polluerant\nfornicatione, nunc mundent barbari castitate?\"[316] Whilst thus their\nhabits met half-way the morality of the Christian system, their\nmythology, which was the very crown and summit of all pagan religions,\npredisposed them in like manner for its adoption, by predicting its own\nend, and announcing the advent of a system which was to displace its\ngods. \"It was more than a mere worldly impulse,\" says a famous northern\ndivine, \"that urged the northern nations to wander forth, and to seek,\nlike birds of passage, a milder clime.\" We cannot, however, say more on\nthe predisposition for Christianity of that race to whose hands its\nprogress seems for ever committed, or on the wonderful facility with\nwhich the Teutonic invaders accepted it, whether presented to them in\nthe form of Catholicism or of Arianism.[317] The great marvel in their\nhistory, and their chief claim to the dominion of the world, was, that\nthey had preserved so long, in the bleak regions in which the growth of\ncivilisation was in every way retarded, the virtues together with the\nignorance of the barbarous State.\n\nAt a time when Arianism was extinct in the empire, it assumed among the\nTeutonic tribes the character of a national religion, and added a\ntheological incitement to their animosity against the Romans. The Arian\ntribes, to whom the work of destruction was committed, did it\nthoroughly. But they soon found that their own preservation depended on\ntheir submission to the Church. Those that persisted in their heresy\nwere extirpated. The Lombards and Visigoths saved themselves by a tardy\nconversion from the fate with which they were threatened so long, as\ntheir religion estranged them from the Roman population, and cut them\noff from the civilisation of which the Church was already the only\nguardian. For centuries the pre-eminence in the West belonged to that\nrace which alone became Catholic at once, and never swerved from its\northodoxy. It is a sense of the importance of this fidelity which\ndictated the well-known preamble of the Salic law: \"Gens Francorum\ninclita, Deo auctore condita, ad Catholicam fidem conversa et immunis ab\nhaeresi,\" etc.[318]\n\nThen followed the ages which are not unjustly called the Dark Ages, in\nwhich were laid the foundations of all the happiness that has been since\nenjoyed, and of all the greatness that has been achieved, by men. The\ngood seed, from which a new Christian civilisation sprang, was striking\nroot in the ground. Catholicism appeared as the religion of masses. In\nthose times of simple faith there was no opportunity to call forth an\nAugustine or an Athanasius. It was not an age of conspicuous saints, but\nsanctity was at no time so general. The holy men of the first centuries\nshine with an intense brilliancy from the midst of the surrounding\ncorruption. Legions of saints--individually for the most part obscure,\nbecause of the atmosphere of light around them--throng the five\nilliterate centuries, from the close of the great dogmatic controversies\nto the rise of a new theology and the commencement of new contests with\nHildebrand, Anselm, and Bernard. All the manifestations of the Catholic\nspirit in those days bear a character of vastness and popularity. A\nsingle idea--the words of one man--electrified hundreds of thousands. In\nsuch a state of the world, the Christian ideas were able to become\nincarnate, so to speak, in durable forms, and succeeded in animating\nthe political institutions as well as the social life of the nations.\n\nThe facility with which the Teutonic ideas of Government shaped\nthemselves to the mould of the new religion, was the second point in\nwhich that race was so peculiarly adapted for the position it has ever\nsince occupied towards Christianity. They ceased to be barbarians only\nin becoming Christians. Their political system was in its infancy, and\nwas capable of being developed variously, according to the influences it\nmight undergo. There was no hostile civilisation to break down, no\ntraditions to oppose which were bound up with the recollections of the\nnational greatness. The State is so closely linked with religion, that\nno nation that has changed its religion has ever survived in its old\npolitical form. In Rome it had proved to be impossible to alter the\nsystem, which for a thousand years had animated every portion of the\nState; it was incurably pagan. The conversion of the people and the\noutward alliance with the Church could not make up for this\ninconsistency.\n\nBut the Teutonic race received the Catholic ideas wholly and without\nreserve. There was no region into which they failed to penetrate. The\nnation was collectively Catholic, as well as individually. The union of\nthe Church with the political system of the Germans was so complete,\nthat when Hungary adopted the religion of Rome, it adopted at the same\ntime, as a natural consequence, the institutions of the empire. The\nideas of Government which the barbarians carried with them into every\nland which they conquered were always in substance the same. The\n_Respublica Christiana_ of the Middle Ages, consisting of those States\nin which the Teutonic element combined with the Catholic system, was\ngoverned by nearly the same laws. The mediaeval institutions had this\nalso in common, that they grew up everywhere under the protection and\nguidance of the Church; and whilst they subsisted in their integrity,\nher influence in every nation, and that of the Pope over all the\nnations, attained their utmost height. In proportion as they have since\ndegenerated or disappeared, the political influence of religion has\ndeclined. As we have seen that the Church was baffled in the full\nperformance of her mission before Europe was flooded by the great\nmigration, so it may be said that she has never permanently enjoyed her\nproper position and authority in any country where it did not penetrate.\nNo other political system has yet been devised, which was consistent\nwith the full development and action of Catholic principles, but that\nwhich was constructed by the northern barbarians who destroyed the\nWestern empire.\n\nFrom this it does not seem too much to conclude, that the Catholic\nreligion tends to inspire and transform the public as well as the\nprivate life of men; that it is not really master of one without some\nauthority over the other. Consequently, where the State is too powerful\nby long tradition and custom, or too far gone in corruption, to admit of\nthe influence of religion, it can only prevail by ultimately destroying\nthe political system. This helps us to understand the almost\nimperceptible progress of Christianity against Mahometanism, and the\nslowness of its increase in China, where its growth must eventually\nundermine the whole fabric of government. On the other hand, we know\nwith what ease comparatively savage tribes--as the natives of California\nand Paraguay--were converted to a religion which first initiated them in\ncivilisation and government. There are countries in which the natural\nconditions are yet wanting for the kingdom of grace. There is a fulness\nof time for every nation--a time at which it first becomes capable of\nreceiving the faith.[319] It is not harder to believe that certain\npolitical conditions are required to make a nation fit for conversion\nthan that a certain degree of intellectual development is indispensable;\nthat the language, for instance, must have reached a point which that of\nsome nations has not attained before it is capable of conveying the\ntruths of Christianity.\n\nWe cannot, therefore, admit that political principles are a matter of\nutter indifference to the Church. To what sort of principles it is that\nshe inclines may be indicated by a single example. The Christian notion\nof conscience imperatively demands a corresponding measure of personal\nliberty. The feeling of duty and responsibility to God is the only\narbiter of a Christian's actions. With this no human authority can be\npermitted to interfere. We are bound to extend to the utmost, and to\nguard from every encroachment, the sphere in which we can act in\nobedience to the sole voice of conscience, regardless of any other\nconsideration. The Church cannot tolerate any species of government in\nwhich this right is not recognised. She is the irreconcilable enemy of\nthe despotism of the State, whatever its name or its forms may be, and\nthrough whatever instruments it may be exercised. Where the State allows\nthe largest amount of this autonomy, the subject enjoys the largest\nmeasure of freedom, and the Church the greatest legitimate influence.\nThe republics of antiquity were as incapable as the Oriental despotisms\nof satisfying the Christian notion of freedom, or even of subsisting\nwith it. The Church has succeeded in producing the kind of liberty she\nexacts for her children only in those States which she has herself\ncreated or transformed. Real freedom has been known in no State that did\nnot pass through her mediaeval action. The history of the Middle Ages is\nthe history of the gradual emancipation of man from every species of\nservitude, in proportion as the influence of religion became more\npenetrating and more universal. The Church could never abandon that\nprinciple of liberty by which she conquered pagan Rome. The history of\nthe last three centuries exhibits the gradual revival of declining\nslavery, which appears under new forms of oppression as the authority of\nreligion has decreased. The efforts of deliverance have been violent and\nreactionary, the progress of dependence sure and inevitable. The\npolitical benefits of the mediaeval system have been enjoyed by no nation\nwhich is destitute of Teutonic elements. The Slavonic races of the\nnorth-east, the Celtic tribes of the north-west, were deprived of them.\nIn the centre of mediaeval civilisation, the republic of Venice, proud of\nits unmixed descent from the Romans, was untouched by the new blood, and\nthat Christian people failed to obtain a Christian government. Where the\ninfluence of the ideas which prevailed in those times has not been felt,\nthe consequence has been the utmost development of extreme principles,\nsuch as have doomed Asia for so many ages to perpetual stagnation, and\nAmerica to endless heedless change. It is a plain fact, that that kind\nof liberty which the Church everywhere and at all times requires has\nbeen attained hitherto only in States of Teutonic origin. We need hardly\nglance at the importance of this observation in considering the\nmissionary vocation of the English race in the distant regions it has\npeopled and among the nations it has conquered; for, in spite of its\nreligious apostasy, no other country has preserved so pure that idea of\nliberty which gave to religion of old its power in Europe, and is still\nthe foundation of the greatness of England. Other nations that have\npreserved more faithfully their allegiance to the Church have more\ndecidedly broken with those political traditions, without which the\naction of the Church is fettered.\n\nIt is equally clear that, in insisting upon one definite principle in\nall government, the Church has at no time understood that it could be\nobtained only by particular political forms. She attends to the\nsubstance, not to the form, in politics. At various times she has\nsuccessively promoted monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy; and at\nvarious times she has been betrayed by each. The three fundamental forms\nof all government are founded on the nature of things. Sovereignty must\nreside with an individual, or with a minority, or with the majority. But\nthere are seasons and circumstances where one or the other is\nimpossible, where one or the other is necessary; and in a growing nation\nthey cannot always remain in the same relative proportions. Christianity\ncould neither produce nor abolish them. They are all compatible with\nliberty and religion, and are all liable to diverge into tyranny by the\nexclusive exaggeration of their principle. It is this exaggeration that\nhas ever been the great danger to religion and to liberty, and the\nobject of constant resistance, the source of constant suffering for the\nChurch.\n\nChristianity introduced no new forms of government, but a new spirit,\nwhich totally transformed the old ones. The difference between a\nChristian and a pagan monarchy, or between a Christian and a rationalist\ndemocracy, is as great, politically, as that between a monarchy and a\nrepublic. The Government of Athens more nearly resembled that of Persia\nthan that of any Christian republic, however democratic. If political\ntheorists had attended more to the experience of the Christian Ages, the\nChurch and the State would have been spared many calamities.\nUnfortunately, it has long been the common practice to recur to the\nauthority of the Greeks and the Jews. The example of both was equally\ndangerous; for in the Jewish as in the Gentile world, political and\nreligious obligations were made to coincide; in both, therefore,--in the\ntheocracy of the Jews as in the [Greek: politeia] of the Greeks,--the\nState was absolute. Now it is the great object of the Church, by keeping\nthe two spheres permanently distinct,--by rendering to Caesar the things\nthat are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's--to make all\nabsolutism, of whatever kind, impossible.\n\nAs no form of government is in itself incompatible with tyranny, either\nof a person or a principle, nor necessarily inconsistent with liberty,\nthere is no natural hostility or alliance between the Church and any one\nof them. The same Church which, in the confusion and tumult of the great\nmigrations, restored authority by raising up and anointing kings, held\nin later times with the aristocracy of the empire, and called into\nexistence the democracies of Italy. In the eighth century she looked to\nCharlemagne for the reorganisation of society; in the eleventh she\nrelied on the people to carry out the reformation of the clergy. During\nthe first period of the Middle Ages, when social and political order had\nto be reconstructed out of ruins, the Church everywhere addresses\nherself to the kings, and seeks to strengthen and to sanctify their\npower. The royal as well as the imperial dignity received from her their\nauthority and splendour. Whatever her disputes on religious grounds with\nparticular sovereigns, such as Lothar, she had in those ages as yet no\ncontests with the encroachments of monarchical power. Later on in the\nMiddle Ages, on the contrary, when the monarchy had prevailed almost\neverywhere, and had strengthened itself beyond the limits of feudal\nideas by the help of the Roman law and of the notions of absolute power\nderived from the ancients, it stood in continual conflict with the\nChurch. From the time of Gregory VII., all the most distinguished\npontiffs were engaged in quarrels with the royal and imperial power,\nwhich resulted in the victory of the Church in Germany and her defeat in\nFrance. In this resistance to the exaggeration of monarchy, they\nnaturally endeavoured to set barriers to it by promoting popular\ninstitutions, as the Italian democracies and the aristocratic republics\nof Switzerland, and the capitulations which in the thirteenth and\nfourteenth centuries were imposed on almost every prince. Times had\ngreatly changed when a Pope declared his amazement at a nation which\nbore in silence the tyranny of their king.[320] In modern times the\nabsolute monarchy in Catholic countries has been, next to the\nReformation, the greatest and most formidable enemy of the Church. For\nhere she again lost in great measure her natural influence. In France,\nSpain, and Germany, by Gallicanism, Josephism, and the Inquisition, she\ncame to be reduced to a state of dependence, the more fatal and\ndeplorable that the clergy were often instrumental in maintaining it.\nAll these phenomena were simply an adaptation of Catholicism to a\npolitical system incompatible with it in its integrity; an artifice to\naccommodate the Church to the requirements of absolute government, and\nto furnish absolute princes with a resource which was elsewhere supplied\nby Protestantism. The consequence has been, that the Church is at this\nday more free under Protestant than under Catholic governments--in\nPrussia or England than in France or Piedmont, Naples or Bavaria.\n\nAs we have said that the Church commonly allied herself with the\npolitical elements which happened to be insufficiently represented, and\nto temper the predominant principle by encouraging the others, it might\nseem hardly unfair to conclude that that kind of government in which\nthey are all supposed to be combined,--\"aequatum et temperatum ex tribus\noptimis rerum publicarum modis\" (Cicero, _Rep._ i. 45),--must be\nparticularly suited to her. Practically--and we are not here pursuing a\ntheory--this is a mere fallacy. If we look at Catholic countries, we\nfind that in Spain and Piedmont the constitution has served only to\npillage, oppress, and insult the Church; whilst in Austria, since the\nempire has been purified in the fiery ordeal of the revolution, she is\nfree, secure, and on the highroad of self-improvement. In constitutional\nBavaria she has but little protection against the Crown, or in Belgium\nagainst the mob. The royal power is against her in one place, the\npopular element in the other. Turning to Protestant countries, we find\nthat in Prussia the Church is comparatively free; whilst the more\npopular Government of Baden has exhibited the most conspicuous instance\nof oppression which has occurred in our time. The popular Government of\nSweden, again, has renewed the refusal of religious toleration at the\nvery time when despotic Russia begins to make a show, at least, of\nconceding it. In the presence of these facts, it would surely be absurd\nto assume that the Church must look with favour on the feeble and\ntransitory constitutions with which the revolution has covered half the\nContinent. It does not actually appear that she has derived greater\nbenefits from them than she may be said to have done from the revolution\nitself, which in France, for instance in 1848, gave to the Church, at\nleast for a season, that liberty and dignity for which she had struggled\nin vain during the constitutional period which had preceded.\n\nThe political character of our own country bears hardly more resemblance\nto the Liberal Governments of the Continent,--which have copied only\nwhat is valueless in our institutions,--than to the superstitious\ndespotism of the East, or to the analogous tyranny which in the Far West\nis mocked with the name of freedom. Here, as elsewhere, the progress of\nthe constitution, which it was the work of the Catholic Ages to build\nup, on the principles common to all the nations of the Teutonic stock,\nwas interrupted by the attraction which the growth of absolutism abroad\nexcited, and by the Reformation's transferring the ecclesiastical power\nto the Crown. The Stuarts justified their abuse of power by the same\nprecepts and the same examples by which the Puritans justified their\nresistance to it. The liberty aimed at by the Levellers was as remote\nfrom that which the Middle Ages had handed down, as the power of the\nStuarts from the mediaeval monarchy. The Revolution of 1688 destroyed one\nwithout favouring the other. Unlike the rebellion against Charles I.,\nthat which overthrew his son did not fall into a contrary extreme. It\nwas a restoration in some sort of the principles of government, which\nhad been alternately assailed by absolute monarchy and by a fanatical\ndemocracy. But, as it was directed against the abuse of kingly and\necclesiastical authority, neither the Crown nor the established Church\nrecovered their ancient position; and a jealousy of both has ever since\nsubsisted. There can be no question but that the remnants of the old\nsystem of polity--the utter disappearance of which keeps the rest of\nChristendom in a state of continual futile revolution--exist more\ncopiously in this country than in any other. Instead of the revolutions\nand the religious wars by which, in other Protestant countries,\nCatholics have obtained toleration, they have obtained it in England by\nthe force of the very principles of the constitution. \"I should think\nmyself inconsistent,\" says the chief expounder of our political system,\n\"in not applying my ideas of civil liberty to religious.\" And speaking\nof the relaxation of the penal laws, he says: \"To the great liberality\nand enlarged sentiments of those who are the furthest in the world from\nyou in religious tenets, and the furthest from acting with the party\nwhich, it is thought, the greater part of the Roman Catholics are\ndisposed to espouse, it is that you owe the whole, or very nearly the\nwhole, of what has been done both here and in Ireland.\"[321] The danger\nwhich menaces the continuance of our constitution proceeds simply from\nthe oblivion of those Christian ideas by which it was originally\ninspired. It should seem that it is the religious as well as the\npolitical duty of Catholics to endeavour to avert this peril, and to\ndefend from the attacks of the Radicals and from the contempt of the\nTories the only constitution which bears some resemblance to those of\nCatholic times, and the principles which are almost as completely\nforgotten in England as they are misunderstood abroad. If three\ncenturies of Protestantism have not entirely obliterated the ancient\nfeatures of our government, if they have not been so thoroughly barren\nof political improvement as some of its enemies would have us\nbelieve,--there is surely nothing to marvel at, nothing at which we may\nrejoice. Protestants may well have, in some respects, the same\nterrestrial superiority over Catholics that the Gentiles had over the\npeople of God. As, at the fall of paganism, the treasures it had\nproduced and accumulated during two thousand years became the spoils of\nthe victor,--when the day of reckoning shall come for the great modern\napostasy, it will surrender all that it has gathered in its diligent\napplication to the things of this world; and those who have remained in\nthe faith will have into the bargain those products of the Protestant\ncivilisation on which its claims of superiority are founded.\n\nWhen, therefore, in the political shipwreck of modern Europe, it is\nasked which political form of party is favoured by the Church, the only\nanswer we can give is, that she is attached to none; but that though\nindifferent to existing forms, she is attached to a spirit which is\nnearly extinct. Those who, from a fear of exposing her to political\nanimosity, would deny this, forget that the truth is as strong against\npolitical as against religious error, and shut their eyes to the only\nmeans by which the political regeneration of the modern world is a\npossibility. For the Catholic religion alone will not suffice to save\nit, as it was insufficient to save the ancient world, unless the\nCatholic idea equally manifests itself in the political order. The\nChurch alone, without influence on the State, is powerless as a security\nfor good government. It is absurd to pretend that at the present day\nFrance, or Spain, or Naples, are better governed than England, Holland,\nor Prussia. A country entirely Protestant may have more Catholic\nelements in its government than one where the population is wholly\nCatholic. The State which is Catholic _par excellence_ is a by-word for\nmisgovernment, because the orthodoxy and piety of its administrators are\ndeemed a substitute for a better system. The demand for a really\nCatholic system of government falls with the greatest weight of reproach\non the Catholic States.\n\nYet it is important to remember that in the ages of faith the same unity\nprevailed in political ideas, and that the civil as well as the\nreligious troubles of our time are in great measure due to the\nReformation. It is common to advise Catholics to make up their minds to\naccept the political doctrines of the day; but it would be more to the\npurpose to recall the ideas of Catholic times. It is not in the results\nof the political development of the last three centuries that the Church\ncan place her trust; neither in absolute monarchy, nor in the\nrevolutionary liberalism, nor in the infallible constitutional scheme.\nShe must create anew or revive her former creations, and instil a new\nlife and spirit into those remains of the mediaeval system which will\nbear the mark of the ages when heresy and unbelief, Roman law, and\nheathen philosophy, had not obscured the idea of the Christian State.\nThese remains are to be found, in various stages of decay, in every\nState,--with the exception, perhaps, of France,--that grew out of the\nmediaeval civilisation. Above all they will be found in the country\nwhich, in the midst of its apostasy, and in spite of so much guilt\ntowards religion, has preserved the Catholic forms in its Church\nestablishment more than any other Protestant nation, and the Catholic\nspirit in her political institutions more than any Catholic nation. To\nrenew the memory of the times in which this spirit prevailed in Europe,\nand to preserve the remains of it, to promote the knowledge of what is\nlost, and the desire of what is most urgently needed,--is an important\nservice and an important duty which it behoves us to perform. We are\ngreatly mistaken if these are not reflections which force themselves on\nevery one who carefully observes the political history of the Church in\nmodern Europe.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 300: _The Rambler_, 1858.]\n\n[Footnote 301: Tertullian, _Apologeticum_, 39; see also 30, 32. \"We pray\nalso for the emperors, for the ministers of their Government, for the\nState, for the peace of the world, for the delay of the last day.\"]\n\n[Footnote 302: _De Civil. Dei_, xv. 5. \"The fratricide was the first\nfounder of the secular State.\"]\n\n[Footnote 303: \"The Church reckons her subjects not as her servants but\nas her children.\"]\n\n[Footnote 304: \"It is the maddest insolence, not only to dispute against\nthat which we see the universal Church believing, but also against what\nwe see her doing. For not only is the faith of the Church the rule of\nour faith, but also her actions of ours, and her customs of that which\nwe ought to observe\" (Morinus, _Comment. de Discipl. in administ.\nPoenitentiae_, Preface).]\n\n[Footnote 305: \"Apud vos quodvis colere jus est Deum verum\" (Tertullian,\n_Apolog._ xxiv.).]\n\n[Footnote 306: August. _de Civ. Dei_, xx. 19. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 307: \"Christianus nullius est hostis, nedum imperatoris, quem\n... necesse est ut ... salvum velit cum toto Romano imperio quousque\nsaeculum stabit; tamdiu enim stabit\" (Tert. _ad Scapulam_, 2). \"Cum\ncaput illud orbis occiderit et [Greek: rhym] esse coeperit, quod\nSibyllae fore aiunt, quis dubitet venisse jam finem rebus humanis\norbique terrarum?\" (Lactantius, _Inst. Div._ vii. 25). \"Non prius veniet\nChristus, quam regni Romani defectio fiat\" (Ambrose _ad ep._ i. _ad\nThess._).]\n\n[Footnote 308: \"There is nothing so voluntary as religion.\"]\n\n[Footnote 309: \"God does not want unwilling worship, nor does he require\na forced repentance.\"]\n\n[Footnote 310: Athanas. i. 363 B and 384 C [Greek: mhe hanagkhazein\nhalla peithein] \"not compulsion, but persuasion\" (Chrysost. ii. 540 A\nand C).]\n\n[Footnote 311: \"If the State of which we are the secular children passes\naway, that of which we are spiritual children passes not. Has God gone\nto sleep and let the house be destroyed, or let in the enemy through\nwant of watchfulness? Why fearest thou when earthly kingdoms fall?\nHeaven is promised thee, that thou mightest not fall with them. The\nworks of God Himself shall pass: how much sooner the works of Romulus!\nLet us not quail, my brethren: all earthly kingdoms must come to an\nend.\"]\n\n[Footnote 312: \"The cry of the whole world is 'Christ.' The mind is\nhorrified in reviewing the ruins of our age. The Roman world is falling,\nand yet our stiff neck is not bent. The barbarians' strength is in our\nsins; the defeat of the Roman armies in our vices. We will not cut off\nthe occasions of the malady, that the malady may be healed. The world is\nfalling, but in us there is no falling off from sin\" (St. Jerome, _ep.\n35, ad Heliodorum_; _ep. 98, ad Gaudentium_).]\n\n[Footnote 313: \"None are better witnesses of the words of heaven than\nwe, on whom the end of the world has come. We assist at the world's\nsetting, and diseases precede its dissolution\" (_Expos. Ep. sec. Lucam_,\nx.).]\n\n[Footnote 314: \"What is well-nigh all Christendom but a sink of\niniquity?\" (_De Gub. Dei_, iii. 9).]\n\n[Footnote 315: \"In our age the devil has so defiled everything that\nscarcely a thing is done without idolatry.\"]\n\n[Footnote 316: \"Do we wonder that God has granted all our lands to the\nbarbarians, when they now purify by their chastity the places which the\nRomans had polluted with their debauchery?\"]\n\n[Footnote 317: Pope Anastasius writes to Clovis: \"Sedes Petri in tanta\noccasione non potest non laetari, cum plenitudinem gentium intuetur ad\neam veloci gradu concurrere\" (Bouquet, iv. 50).]\n\n[Footnote 318: \"The noble people of the Franks, founded by God,\nconverted to the Catholic faith, and free from heresy.\"]\n\n[Footnote 319: \"Vetati sunt a Spiritu sancto loqui verbum Dei in Asia\n... Tentabant ire in Bithyniam, et non permisit eos spiritus Jesu\"\n(_Acts_ xvi. 6, 7).]\n\n[Footnote 320: Innocent IV. wrote in 1246 to the Sicilians: \"In omnem\nterram vestrae sonus tribulationis exivit ... multis pro miro vehementi\nducentibus, quod pressi tam dirae servitutis opprobrio, et personarum ac\nrerum gravati multiplici detrimento, neglexeritis habere concilium, per\nquod vobis, sicut gentibus caeteris, aliqua provenirent solatia\nlibertatis ... super hoc apud sedem apostolicam vos excusante\nformidine.... Cogitate itaque corde vigili, ut a collo vestrae\nservitutis catena decidat, et universitas vestra in libertatis et\nquietis gaudio reflorescat; sitque ubertate conspicuum, ita divina\nfavente potentia secura sit libertate decorum\" (Raynaldus, _Ann._ ad\nann. 1246).]\n\n[Footnote 321: Burke's _Works_, i. 391, 404.]\n\n\n\n\nVII\n\nINTRODUCTION TO L.A. BURD'S EDITION OF IL PRINCIPE BY MACHIAVELLI\n\n\nMr. Burd has undertaken to redeem our long inferiority in Machiavellian\nstudies, and it will, I think, be found that he has given a more\ncompletely satisfactory explanation of _The Prince_ than any country\npossessed before. His annotated edition supplies all the solvents of a\nfamous problem in the history of Italy and the literature of politics.\nIn truth, the ancient problem is extinct, and no reader of this volume\nwill continue to wonder how so intelligent and reasonable a man came to\npropose such flagitious counsels. When Machiavelli declared that\nextraordinary objects cannot be accomplished under ordinary rules, he\nrecorded the experience of his own epoch, but also foretold the secret\nof men since born. He illustrates not only the generation which taught\nhim, but the generations which he taught, and has no less in common with\nthe men who had his precepts before them than with the Viscontis,\nBorgias, and Baglionis who were the masters he observed. He represents\nmore than the spirit of his country and his age. Knowledge,\ncivilisation, and morality have increased; but three centuries have\nborne enduring witness to his political veracity. He has been as much\nthe exponent of men whom posterity esteems as of him whose historian\nwrites: \"Cet homme que Dieu, apres l'avoir fait si grand, avait fait bon\naussi, n'avait rien de la vertu.\" The authentic interpreter of\nMachiavelli, the _Commentarius Perpetuus_ of the _Discorsi_ and _The\nPrince_, is the whole of later history.\n\nMichelet has said: \"Rapportons-nous-en sur ceci a quelqu'un qui fut bien\nplus Machiaveliste que Machiavel, a la republique de Venise.\" Before his\nday, and long after, down almost to the time when a price was set on the\nheads of the Pretender and of Pontiac, Venice employed assassins. And\nthis was not the desperate resource of politicians at bay, but the\navowed practice of decorous and religious magistrates. In 1569 Soto\nhazards an impersonal doubt whether the morality of the thing was sound:\n\"Non omnibus satis probatur Venetorum mos, qui cum complures a patria\nexules habeant condemnatos, singulis facultatem faciunt, ut qui alium\neorum interfecerit, vita ac libertate donetur.\" But his sovereign\nshortly after obtained assurance that murder by royal command was\nunanimously approved by divines: \"A los tales puede el Principe\nmandarlos matar, aunque esten fuera de su distrito y reinos.--Sin ser\ncitado, secretamente se le puede quitar la vita.--Esta es doctrina comun\ny cierta y recevida de todos los theologos.\" When the King of France, by\ndespatching the Guises, had restored his good name in Europe, a\nVenetian, Francesco da Molino, hoped that the example would not be\nthrown away on the Council of Ten: \"Permeti sua divina bonta che questo\nesempio habbi giovato a farlo proceder come spero con meno fretta e piu\nsodamente a cose tali e d' importanza.\" Sarpi, their ablest writer,\ntheir official theologian, has a string of maxims which seem to have\nbeen borrowed straight from the Florentine predecessor: \"Proponendo cosa\nin apparenza non honesta, scusarla come necessaria, come praticata da\naltri, come propria al tempo, che tende a buon fine, et conforme all'\nopinione de' molti.--La vendetta non giova se non per fugir lo\nsprezzo.--Ogn'huomo ha opinione che il mendacio sia buono in ragion di\nmedicina, et di far bene a far creder il vero et utile con premesse\nfalse.\" One of his countrymen, having examined his writings, reports: \"I\nricordi di questo grand' uomo furono piu da politico che da christiano.\"\nTo him was attributed the doctrine of secret punishment, and the use of\npoison against public enemies: \"In casi d' eccessi incorrigibili si\npunissero secretamente, a fine che il sangue patrizio non resti\nprofanato.--Il veleno deve esser l' unico mezzo per levarli dal mondo,\nquando alla giustizia non complisse farli passare sotto la manaia del\ncarnefice.\" Venice, otherwise unlike the rest of Europe, was, in this\nparticular, not an exception.\n\nMachiavelli enjoyed a season of popularity even at Rome. The Medicean\npopes refused all official employment to one who had been the brain of a\nhostile government; but they encouraged him to write, and were not\noffended by the things he wrote for them. Leo's own dealings with the\ntyrant of Perugia were cited by jurists as a suggestive model for men\nwho have an enemy to get rid of. Clement confessed to Contarini that\nhonesty would be preferable, but that honest men get the worst of it:\n\"Io cognosco certo che voi dicete il vero, et che ad farla da homo da\nbene, et a far il debito, seria proceder come mi aricordate; ma\nbisognerebbe trovar la corrispondentia. Non vedete che il mondo e\nridutto a un termine che colui il qual e piu astuto et cum piu trame fa\nil fatto suo, e piu laudato, et estimato piu valente homo, et piu\ncelebrato, et chi fa il contrario vien detto di esso; quel tale e una\nbona persona, ma non val niente? Et se ne sta cum quel titulo solo di\nbona persona.--Chi va bonamente vien trata da bestia.\" Two years after\nthis speech the astute Florentine authorised _The Prince_ to be\npublished at Rome.\n\nIt was still unprinted when Pole had it pressed on his attention by\nCromwell, and Brosch consequently suspects the story. Upon the death of\nClement, Pole opened the attack; but it was not pursued during the\nreaction against things Medicean which occupied the reign of Farnese.\nMachiavelli was denounced to the Inquisition on the 11th of November\n1550, by Muzio, a man much employed in controversy and literary\nrepression, who, knowing Greek, was chosen by Pius V. for the work\nafterwards committed to Baronius: \"Senza rispetto alcuno insegna a non\nservar ne fede, ne charita, ne religione; et dice che di queste cosi,\ngli huomini se ne debbono servire per parer buoni, et per le grandezze\ntemporali, alle quali quando non servono non se ne dee fare stima. Et\nnon e questo peggio che heretica dottrina? Vedendosi che cio si\ncomporta, sono accetate come opere approvate dalla Santa Madre chiesa.\"\nMuzio, who at the same time recommended the _Decamerone_, was not acting\nfrom ethical motives. His accusation succeeded. When the Index was\ninstituted, in 1557, Machiavelli was one of the first writers condemned,\nand he was more rigorously and implacably condemned than anybody else.\nThe Trent Commissioners themselves prepared editions of certain\nprohibited authors, such as Clarius and Flaminius; Guicciardini was\nsuffered to appear with retrenchments; and the famous revision of\nBoccaccio was carried out in 1573. This was due to the influence of\nVictorius, who pleaded in vain for a castigated text of Machiavelli. He\ncontinued to be specially excepted when permission was given to read\nforbidden books. Sometimes there were other exceptions, such as\nDumoulin, Marini, or Maimbourg; but the exclusion of Machiavelli was\npermanent, and when Lucchesini preached against him at the Gesu, he had\nto apply to the Pope himself for licence to read him. Lipsius was\nadvised by his Roman censors to mix a little Catholic salt in his\nMachiavellism, and to suppress a seeming protest against the universal\nhatred for a writer _qui misera qua non manu hodie vapulat_. One of the\nablest but most contentious of the Jesuits, Raynaud, pursued his memory\nwith a story like that with which Tronchin improved the death of\nVoltaire: \"Exitus impiissimi nebulonis metuendus est eius aemulatoribus,\nnam blasphemans evomuit reprobum spiritum.\"\n\nIn spite of this notorious disfavour, he has been associated with the\nexcesses of the religious wars. The daughter of the man to whom he\naddressed _The Prince_ was Catharine of Medici, and she was reported to\nhave taught her children \"surtout des traictz de cet athee Machiavel.\"\nBoucher asserted that Henry III. carried him in his pocket: \"qui\nperpetuus ei in sacculo atque manibus est\"; and Montaigne confirms the\nstory when he says: \"Et dict on, de ce temps, que Machiavel est encores\nailleurs en credit.\" The pertinently appropriate quotation by which the\nQueen sanctified her murderous resolve was supplied, not by her father's\nrejected and discredited monitor, but by a bishop at the Council of\nTrent, whose sermons had just been published: \"Bisogna esser severo et\nacuto, non bisogna esser clemente; e crudelta l' esser pietoso, e pieta\nl' esser crudele.\" And the argument was afterwards embodied in the\n_Controversies_ of Bellarmin: \"Haereticis obstinatis beneficium est,\nquod de hac vita tollantur, nam quo diutius vivunt, eo plures errores\nexcogitant; plures pervertunt, et majorem sibi damnationem acquirunt.\"\n\nThe divines who held these doctrines received them through their own\nchannels straight from the Middle Ages. The germ theory, that the wages\nof heresy is death, was so expanded as to include the rebel, the\nusurper, the heterodox or rebellious town, and it continued to develop\nlong after the time of Machiavelli. At first it had been doubtful\nwhether a small number of culprits justified the demolition of a city:\n\"Videtur quod si aliqui haeretici sunt in civitate potest exuri tota\ncivitas.\" Under Gregory XIII. the right is asserted unequivocally:\n\"Civitas ista potest igne destrui, quando in ea plures sunt haeretici.\"\nIn case of sedition, fire is a less suitable agent: \"Propter rebellionem\ncivitas quandoque supponitur aratro et possunt singuli decapitari.\" As\nto heretics the view was: \"Ut hostes latronesque occidi possunt etiamsi\nsunt clerici.\" A king, if he was judged a usurper, was handed over to\nextinction: \"Licite potest a quolibet de populo occidi, pro libertate\npopuli, quando non est recursus ad superiorem, a quo possit iustitia\nfieri.\" Or, in the words of the scrupulous Soto: \"Tunc quisque ius habet\nipsum extinguendi.\" To the end of the seventeenth century theologians\ntaught: \"Occidatur, seu occidendus proscribatur, quando non alitur\npotest haberi tranquillitas Reipublicae.\"\n\nThis was not mere theory, or the enforced logic of men in thrall to\nmediaeval antecedents. Under the most carnal and unchristian king, the\nVaudois of Provence were exterminated in the year 1545, and Paul Sadolet\nwrote as follows to Cardinal Farnese just before and just after the\nevent: \"Aggionta hora questa instantia del predetto paese di Provenza a\nquella che da Mons. Nuntio s'era fatta a Sua Maesta Christianissima a\nnome di Sua Beatitudine et di Vostra Reverendissima Signoria, siamo in\nferma speranza, che vi si debbia pigliare qualche bono expediente et\nfarci qualche gagliarda provisione.--E seguito, in questo paese, quel\ntanto desiderato et tanto necessario effetto circa le cose di Cabrieres,\nche da vostra Signoria Reverendissima e stato si lungamente ricordato et\nsollicitato et procurato.\" Even Melanchthon was provoked by the death of\nCromwell to exclaim that there is no better deed than the slaughter of a\ntyrant; \"Utinam Deus alicui forti viro hanc mentem inserat!\" And in 1575\nthe Swedish bishops decided that it would be a good work to poison their\nking in a basin of soup--an idea particularly repugnant to the author of\n_De Rege et Regis Institutione_. Among Mariana's papers I have seen the\nletter from Paris describing the murder of Henry III., which he turned\nto such account in the memorable sixth chapter: \"Communico con sus\nsuperiores, si peccaria mortalmente un sacerdote que matase a un tirano.\nEllos le diceron que non era pecado, mas que quedaria irregular. Y no\ncontentandose con esto, ni con las disputas que avia de ordinario en la\nSorbona sobre la materia, continuando siempre sus oraciones, lo pregunto\na otros theologos, que le afirmavan lo mismo; y con esto se resolvio\nenteramente de executarlo. Por el successo es de collegir que tuvo el\nfraile alguna revelacion de Nuestro Senor en particular, y inspiracion\npara executar el caso.\" According to Maffei, the Pope's biographer, the\npriests were not content with saying that killing was no sin: \"Cum illi\nposse, nec sine magno quidem merito censuissent.\" Regicide was so\nacceptable a work that it seemed fitly assigned to a divine\ninterposition.\n\nWhen, on the 21st of January 1591, a youth offered his services to make\naway with Henry IV., the Nuncio remitted the matter to Rome:\n\"Quantunque mi sia parso di trovarlo pieno di tale humilita, prudenza,\nspirito et cose che arguiscono che questa sia inspiratione veramente\npiuttosto che temerita e leggerezza.\" In a volume which, though recent,\nis already rare, the Foreign Office published D'Avaux's advice to treat\nthe Protestants of Ireland much as William treated the Catholics of\nGlencoe; and the argument of the Assassination Plot came originally from\na Belgian seminary. There were at least three men living far into the\neighteenth century who defended the massacre of St. Bartholomew in their\nbooks; and it was held as late as 1741 that culprits may be killed\nbefore they are condemned: \"Etiam ante sententiam impune occidi possunt,\nquando de proximo erant banniendi, vel quando eorum delictum est\nnotorium, grave, et pro quo poena capitis infligenda esset.\"\n\nWhilst these principles were current in religion as well as in society,\nthe official censures of the Church and the protests of every divine\nsince Catharinus were ineffectual. Much of the profaner criticism\nuttered by such authorities as the Cardinal de Retz, Voltaire, Frederic\nthe Great, Daunou, and Mazzini is not more convincing or more real.\nLinguet was not altogether wrong in suggesting that the assailants knew\nMachiavelli at second hand: \"Chaque fois que je jette les yeux sur les\nouvrages de ce grand genie, je ne saurais concevoir, je l'avoue, la\ncause du decri ou il est tombe. Je soupconne fortement que ses plus\ngrands ennemis sont ceux qui ne l'ont pas lu.\" Retz attributed to him a\nproposition which is not in his writings. Frederic and Algernon Sidney\nhad read only one of his books, and Bolingbroke, a congenial spirit, who\nquotes him so often, knew him very little. Hume spoils a serious remark\nby a glaring eighteenth-century comment: \"There is scarcely any maxim in\n_The Prince_ which subsequent experience has not entirely refuted. The\nerrors of this politician proceeded, in a great measure, from his having\nlived in too early an age of the world to be a good judge of political\ntruth.\" Bodin had previously written: \"Il n'a jamais sonde le gue de la\nscience politique.\" Mazzini complains of his _analisi cadaverica ed\nignoranza della vita_; and Barthelemy St Hilaire, verging on paradox,\nsays: \"On dirait vraiment que l'histoire ne lui a rien appris, non plus\nque la conscience.\" That would be more scientific treatment than the\ncommon censure of moralists and the common applause of politicians. It\nis easier to expose errors in practical politics than to remove the\nethical basis of judgments which the modern world employs in common with\nMachiavelli.\n\nBy plausible and dangerous paths men are drawn to the doctrine of the\njustice of History, of judgment by results, the nursling of the\nnineteenth century, from which a sharp incline leads to _The Prince_.\nWhen we say that public life is not an affair of morality, that there is\nno available rule of right and wrong, that men must be judged by their\nage, that the code shifts with the longitude, that the wisdom which\ngoverns the event is superior to our own, we carry obscurely tribute to\nthe system which bears so odious a name. Few would scruple to maintain\nwith Mr. Morley that the equity of history requires that we shall judge\nmen of action by the standards of men of action; or with Retz: \"Les\nvices d'un archeveque peuvent etre, dans une infinite de rencontres, les\nvertus d'un chef de parti.\" The expounder of Adam Smith to France, J.B.\nSay, confirms the ambitious coadjutor: \"Louis XIV. et son despotisme et\nses guerres n'ont jamais fait le mal qui serait resulte des conseils de\nce bon Fenelon, l'apotre et le martyr de la vertu et du bien des\nhommes.\" Most successful public men deprecate what Sir Henry Taylor\ncalls much weak sensibility of conscience, and approve Lord Grey's\nlanguage to Princess Lieven: \"I am a great lover of morality, public and\nprivate; but the intercourse of nations cannot be strictly regulated by\nthat rule.\" While Burke was denouncing the Revolution, Walpole wrote:\n\"No great country was ever saved by good men, because good men will not\ngo the lengths that may be necessary.\" All which had been formerly\nanticipated by Pole: \"Quanto quis privatam vitam agens Christi similior\nerit tanto minus aptus ad regendum id munus iudicio hominum\nexistimabitur.\" The main principle of Machiavelli is asserted by his\nmost eminent English disciple: \"It is the solecism of power to think, to\ncommand the end, and yet not to endure the means.\" And Bacon leads up to\nthe familiar Jesuit: \"Cui licet finis, illi et media permissa sunt.\"\n\nThe austere Pascal has said: \"On ne voit rien de juste ou d'injuste qui\nne change de qualite en changeant de climat\" (the reading _presque_ rien\nwas the precaution of an editor). The same underlying scepticism is\nfound not only in philosophers of the Titanic sort, to whom remorse is a\nprejudice of education, and the moral virtues are \"the political\noffspring which flattery begat upon pride,\" but among the masters of\nliving thought. Locke, according to Mr. Bain, holds that we shall\nscarcely find any rule of morality, excepting such as are necessary to\nhold society together, and these too with great limitations, but what is\nsomewhere or other set aside, and an opposite established by whole\nsocieties of men. Maine de Biran extracts this conclusion from the\n_Esprit des Lois_: \"Il n'y a rien d'absolu ni dans la religion, ni dans\nla morale, ni, a plus forte raison, dans la politique.\" In the\nmercantile economists Turgot detects the very doctrine of Helvetius: \"Il\netablit qu'il n'y a pas lieu a la probite entre les nations, d'ou\nsuivroit que la monde doit etre eternellement un coupe-gorge. En quoi il\nest bien d'accord avec les panegyristes de Colbert.\"\n\nThese things survive, transmuted, in the edifying and popular epigram:\n\"Die Weltgeschichte ist das Weltgericht.\" Lacordaire, though he spoke so\nwell of \"L'empire et les ruses de la duree,\" recorded his experience in\nthese words: \"J'ai toujours vu Dieu se justifier a la longue.\" Reuss, a\nteacher of opposite tendency and greater name, is equally consoling:\n\"Les destinees de l'homme s'accomplissent ici-bas; la justice de Dieu\ns'exerce et se manifeste sur cette terre.\" In the infancy of exact\nobservation Massillon could safely preach that wickedness ends in\nignominy: \"Dieu aura son tour.\" The indecisive Providentialism of\nBossuet's countrymen is shared by English divines.\n\n\"Contemporaries,\" says Hare, \"look at the agents, at their motives and\ncharacters; history looks rather at the acts and their consequences.\"\nThirlwall hesitates to say that whatever is, is best; \"but I have a\nstrong faith that it is for the best, and that the general stream of\ntendency is toward good.\" And Sedgwick, combining induction with\ntheology, writes: \"If there be a superintending Providence, and if His\nwill be manifested by general laws, operating both on the physical and\nmoral world, then must a violation of those laws be a violation of His\nwill, and be pregnant with inevitable misery.\"\n\nApart from the language of Religion, an optimism ranging to the bounds\nof fatalism is the philosophy of many, especially of historians: \"Le\nvrai, c'est, en toutes choses, le fait.\" Sainte-Beuve says: \"Il y a dans\ntout fait general et prolonge une puissance de demonstration\ninsensible\"; and Scherer describes progress as \"une espece de logique\nobjective et impersonelle qui resout les questions sans appel.\" Ranke\nhas written: \"Der beste Pruefstein ist die Zeit\"; and Sybel explains that\nthis was not a short way out of confusion and incertitude, but a\nprofound generalisation: \"Ein Geschlecht, ein Volk loest das andere ab,\nund der Lebende hat Recht.\" A scholar of a different school and fibre,\nStahr the Aristotelian, expresses the same idea: \"Die Geschichte soll\ndie Richtigkeit des Denkens bewaehren.\" Richelieu's maxim: \"Les grands\ndesseins et notables entreprises ne se verifient jamais autrement que\npar le succes\"; and Napoleon's: \"Je ne juge les hommes que par les\nresultats,\" are seriously appropriated by Fustel de Coulanges: \"Ce qui\ncaracterise le veritable homme d'etat, c'est le succes, on le reconnait\nsurtout a ce signe, qu'il reussit.\" One of Machiavelli's gravest critics\napplied it to him: \"Die ewige Aufgabe der Politik bleibt unter den\ngegebenen Verhaeltnissen und mit den vorhandenen Mitteln etwas zu\nerreichen. Eine Politik die das verkennt, die auf den Erfolg verzichtet,\nsich auf eine theoretische Propaganda, auf ideale Gesichtspunkte\nbeschraenkt, von einer verlorenen Gegenwart an eine kuenftige\nGerechtigkeit appellirt, ist keine Politik mehr.\" One of the mediaeval\npioneers, Stenzel, delivered a formula of purest Tuscan cinquecento:\n\"Was bei anderen Menschen gemeine Schlechtigkeit ist, erhaelt, bei den\nungewoehnlichen Geistern, den Stempel der Groesse, der selbst dem\nVerbrechen sich aufdrueckt. Der Maassstab ist anders; denn das\nAusserordentliche laesst sich nur durch Ausserordentliches bewirken.\"\nTreitschke habitually denounces the impotent Doctrinaires who do not\nunderstand \"dass der Staat Macht ist und der Welt des Willens angehoert,\"\nand who know not how to rise \"von der Politik des Bekenntnisses zu der\nPolitik der That.\" Schaefer, though a less pronounced partisan, derides\nMacaulay for thinking that human happiness concerns political science:\n\"Das Wesen des Staates ist die Macht, und die Politik die Kunst ihn zu\nerhalten.\" Rochau's _Realpolitik_ was a treatise in two volumes written\nto prove \"dass der Staat durch seine Selbsterhaltung das oberste Gebot\nder Sittlichkeit erfuellt.\" Wherefore, nobody finds fault when a State in\nits decline is subjugated by a robust neighbour. In one of those telling\npassages which moved Mr. Freeman to complain that he seems unable to\nunderstand that a small State can have any rights, or that a generous or\npatriotic sentiment can find a place anywhere except in the breast of a\nfool, Mommsen justifies the Roman conquests: \"Kraft des Gesetzes dass\ndas zum Staat entwickelte Volk die politisch unmuendigen, das civilisirte\ndie geistig unmuendigen in sich aufloest.\" The same idea was imparted into\nthe theory of ethics by Kirchmann, and appears, with a sobering touch,\nin the _Geschichte Jesu_ of Hase, the most popular German divine: \"Der\nEinzelne wird nach der Groesse seiner Ziele, nach den Wirkungen seiner\nThaten fuer das Wohl der Voelker gemessen, aber nicht nach dem Maasse der\nMoral und des Rechts.--Vom Leben im Geiste seiner Zeit haengt nicht der\nsittliche Werth eines Menschen, aber seine geschichtliche Wirksamkeit\nab.\" Ruemelin, both in politics and literature the most brilliant Suabian\nof his time, and a strenuous adversary of Machiavelli, wrote thus in\n1874: \"Fuer den Einzelnen im Staat gilt das Princip der Selbsthingabe,\nfuer den Staat das der Selbstbehauptung. Der Einzelne dient dem Recht;\nder Staat handhabt, leitet und schafft dasselbe. Der Einzelne ist nur\nein fluechtiges Glied in dem sittlichen Ganzen; der Staat ist, wenn nicht\ndieses Ganze selbst, doch dessen reale, ordnende Macht; er ist\nunsterblich und sich selbst genug.--Die Erhaltung des Staats\nrechtfertigt jedes Opfer und steht ueber jedem Gebot.\" Nefftzer, an\nAlsatian borderer, says: \"Le devoir supreme des individus est de se\ndevouer, celui des nations est de se conserver, et se confond par\nconsequent avec leur interet.\" Once, in a mood of pantheism, Renan\nwrote: \"L'humanite a tout fait, et, nous voulons le croire, tout bien\nfait.\" Or, as Michelet abridges the _Scienza Nuova_: \"L'humanite est son\noeuvre a elle-meme. Dieu agit sur elle, mais par elle.\" Mr. Leslie\nStephen thus lays down the philosophy of history according to Carlyle,\n\"that only succeeds which is based on divine truth, and permanent\nsuccess therefore proves the right, as the effect proves the cause.\"\nDarwin, having met Carlyle, notes that \"in his eyes might was right,\"\nand adds that he had a narrow and unscientific mind; but Mr. Goldwin\nSmith discovers the same lesson: \"History, of itself, if observed as\nscience observes the facts of the physical world, can scarcely give man\nany principle or any object of allegiance, unless it be success.\" Dr.\nMartineau attributes this doctrine to Mill: \"Do we ask what determines\nthe moral quality of actions? We are referred, not to their spring, but\nto their consequences.\" Jeremy Bentham used to relate how he found the\ngreatest happiness principle in 1768, and gave a shilling for it, at the\ncorner of Queen's College. He found it in Priestley, and he might have\ngone on finding it in Beccaria and Hutcheson, all of whom trace their\npedigree to the _Mandragola_: \"Io credo che quello sia bene che facci\nbene a' piu, e che i piu se ne contentino.\" This is the centre of unity\nin all Machiavelli, and gives him touch, not with unconscious imitators\nonly, but with the most conspicuous race of reasoners in the century.\n\nEnglish experience has not been familiar with a line of thought plainly\ninvolving indulgence to Machiavelli. Dugald Stewart raises him high, but\nraises him for a heavy fall: \"No writer, certainly, either in ancient or\nin modern times, has ever united, in a more remarkable degree, a greater\nvariety of the most dissimilar and seemingly the most discordant gifts\nand attainments.--To his maxims the royal defenders of the Catholic\nfaith have been indebted for the spirit of that policy which they have\nuniformly opposed to the innovations of the reformers.\" Hallam indeed\nhas said: \"We continually find a more flagitious and undisguised\nabandonment of moral rules for the sake of some idol of a general\nprinciple than can be imputed to _The Prince_ of Machiavel.\" But the\nunaccustomed hyperbole had been hazarded a century before in the\nobscurity of a Latin dissertation by Feuerlein: \"Longe detestabiliores\nerrores apud alios doctores politicos facile invenias, si eidem\nrigorosae censurae eorum scripta subiicienda essent.\" What has been,\nwith us, the occasional aphorism of a masterful mind, encountered\nsupport abroad in accredited systems, and in a vast and successful\npolitical movement. The recovery of Machiavelli has been essentially the\nproduct of causes operating on the Continent.\n\nWhen Hegel was dominant to the Rhine, and Cousin beyond it, the\ncircumstances favoured his reputation. For Hegel taught: \"Der Gang der\nWeltgeschichte steht ausserhalb der Tugend, des Lasters, und der\nGerechtigkeit.\" And the great eclectic renewed, in explicit language,\nthe worst maxim of the _Istorie Fiorentine_: \"L'apologie d'un siecle est\ndans son existence, car son existence est un arret et un jugement de\nDieu meme, ou l'histoire n'est qu'une fastasmagorie insignifiante.--Le\ncaractere propre, le signe d'un grand homme, c'est qu'il reussit.--Ou\nnul guerrier ne doit etre appele grand homme, ou, s'il est grand, il\nfaut l'absoudre, et absoudre en masse tout ce qu'il a fait.--Il faut\nprouver que le vainqueur non seulement sert la civilisation, mais qu'il\nest meilleur, plus moral, et que c'est pour cela qu'il est vainqueur.\nMaudire la puissance (j'entends une puissance longue et durable) c'est\nblasphemer l'humanite.\"\n\nThis primitive and everlasting problem assumed a peculiar shape in\ntheological controversy. The Catholic divines urged that prosperity is a\nsign by which, even in the militant period, the true Church may be\nknown; coupling _Felicitas Temporalis illis collata qui ecclesiam\ndefenderunt_ with _Infelix exitus eorum qui ecclesiam oppugnant_. Le\nBlanc de Beaulieu, a name famous in the history of pacific disputation,\nholds the opposite opinion: \"Crucem et perpessiones esse potius\necclesiae notam, nam denunciatum piis in verbo Dei fore ut in hoc mundo\npersecutionem patiantur, non vero ut armis sint adversariis suis\nsuperiores.\" Renan, outbidding all, finds that honesty is the worst\npolicy: \"En general, dans l'histoire, l'homme est puni de ce qu'il fait\nde bien, et recompensee de ce qu'il fait de mal.--L'histoire est tout le\ncontraire de la vertu recompensee.\"\n\nThe national movement which united, first Italy and then Germany, opened\na new era for Machiavelli. He had come down, laden with the distinctive\nreproach of abetting despotism; and the men who, in the seventeenth\ncentury, levelled the course of absolute monarchy, were commonly known\nas _novi politici et Machiavellistae_. In the days of Grotius they are\ndenounced by Besold: \"Novi politici, ex Italia redeuntes qui quavis\nfraude principibus a subditis pecuniam extorquere fas licitumque esse\nputant, Machiavelli plerumque praeceptis et exemplis principum, quorum\nrationes non capiunt, ad id abutentes.\" But the immediate purpose with\nwhich Italians and Germans effected the great change in the European\nconstitution was unity, not liberty. They constructed, not securities,\nbut forces. Machiavelli's time had come. The problems once more were his\nown: and in many forward and resolute minds the spirit also was his, and\ndisplayed itself in an ascending scale of praise. He was simply a\nfaithful observer of facts, who described the fell necessity that\ngoverns narrow territories and unstable fortunes; he discovered the true\nline of progress and the law of future society; he was a patriot, a\nrepublican, a Liberal, but above all this, a man sagacious enough to\nknow that politics is an inductive science. A sublime purpose justifies\nhim, and he has been wronged by dupes and fanatics, by irresponsible\ndreamers and interested hypocrites.\n\nThe Italian Revolution, passing from the Liberal to the national stage,\nat once adopted his name and placed itself under his invocation. Count\nSclopis, though he declared him _Penseur profond, ecrivain admirable_,\ndeplored this untimely preference: \"Il m'a ete penible de voir le\ngouvernement provisoire de la Tuscane, en 1859, le lendemain du jour ou\nce pays recouvrait sa liberte, publier un decret, portant qu'une edition\ncomplete des oeuvres de Machiavel serait faite aux frais de l'etat.\" The\nresearch even of our best masters, Villari and Tommasini, is prompted by\nadmiration. Ferrari, who comes so near him in many qualities of the\nintellect, proclaims him the recorder of fate: \"Il decrit les roles que\nla fatalite distribue aux individus et aux masses dans ces moments\nfunestes et glorieux ou ils sont appeles a changer la loi et la foi des\nnations.\" His advice, says La Farina, would have saved Italy. Canello\nbelieves that he is disliked because he is mistaken for a courtier:\n\"L'orrore e l' antipatia che molti critici hanno provato per il\nMachiavelli son derivati dal pensare che tutti i suoi crudi insegnamenti\nfossero solo a vantaggio del Principe.\" One biographer, Mordenti, exalts\nhim as the very champion of conscience: \"Risuscitando la dignita dell'\numana coscienza, ne affermo l' esistenza in faccia alla ragione.\" He\nadds, more truly, \"E uno dei personaggi del dramma che si va svolgendo\nnell' eta nostra.\"\n\nThat is the meaning of Laurent when he says that he has imitators but no\ndefenders: \"Machiavel ne trouve plus un seul partisan au XIXe\nsiecle.--La posterite a voue son nom a l'infamie, tout en pratiquant sa\ndoctrine.\" His characteristic universality has been recognised by\nBaudrillart: \"En exprimant ce mauvais cote, mais ce mauvais cote, helas,\neternel! Machiavel n'est plus seulement le publiciste de son pays et de\nson temps; it est le politique de tous les siecles.--S'il fait tout\ndependre de la puissance individuelle, et de ses facultes de force,\nd'habilete de ruse, c'est que, plus le theatre se retrecit, plus l'homme\ninflue sur la marche des evenements.\" Matter finds the same merits which\nare applauded by the Italians: \"Il a plus innove pour la liberte que\npour le despotisme, car autour de lui la liberte etait inconnue, tandis\nque le despotisme lui posait partout.\" And his reviewer, Longperier,\npronounces the doctrine \"parfaitement appropriee aux etats d'Italie.\"\nNourrisson, with Fehr, one of the few religious men who still have a\ngood word for the Secretary, admires his sincerity: \"_Le Prince_ est un\nlivre de bonne foi, ou l'auteur, sans songer a mal, n'a fait que\ntraduire en maximes les pratiques habituelles a ses contemporains.\"\nThiers, though he surrendered _The Prince_, clung to the _Discorsi_--the\n_Discorsi_, with the pointed and culminating text produced by Mr. Burd.\nIn the archives of the ministry he might have found how the idea struck\nhis successful predecessor, Vergennes: \"Il est des choses plus fortes\nque les hommes, et les grands interets des nations sont de ce genre, et\ndoivent par consequent l'emporter sur la facon de penser de quelques\nparticuliers.\"\n\nLoyalty to Frederic the Great has not restrained German opinion, and\nphilosophers unite with historians in rejecting his youthful moralities.\nZimmerman wonders what would have become of Prussia if the king had\npractised the maxims of the crown prince; and Zeller testifies that the\n_Anti-Machiavel_ was not permitted to influence his reign: \"Wird man\ndoch weder in seiner Staatsleitung noch in seinen politischen\nGrundsaetzen etwas von dem vermissen, worauf die Ueberlegenheit einer\ngesunden Realpolitik allem liberalen oder conservativen, radikalen oder\nlegitimistischen, Doktrinarismus gegenueber beruht.\" Ahrens and\nWindelband insist on the virtue of a national government: \"Der Staat ist\nsich selbst genug, wenn er in einer Nation wurzelt,--das ist der\nGrundgedanke Machiavelli's.\" Kirchmann celebrates the emancipation of\nthe State from the moral yoke: \"Man hat Machiavelli zwar in der Theorie\nbekaempft, allein die Praxis der Staaten hat seine Lehren immer\neingehalten.--Wenn seine Lehre verletzt, so kommt diess nur von der\nKleinheit der Staaten und Fuersten, auf die er sie verwendet.--Es spricht\nnur fuer seine tiefe Erkenntniss des Staatswesens, dass er die\nStaatsgewalt nicht den Regeln der Privatmoral unterwirft, sondern selbst\nvor groben Verletzungen dieser Moral durch den Fuersten nicht\nzurueckschreckt, wenn das Wohl des Ganzen und die Freiheit des\nVaterlandes nicht anders vorbereitet und vermittelt werden kann.\" In\nKuno Fischer's progress through the systems of metaphysics Machiavelli\nappears at almost every step; his influence is manifest to Dr. Abbott\nthroughout the whole of Bacon's political writings; Hobbes followed up\nhis theory to the conclusions which he abstained from; Spinoza gave him\nthe benefit of a liberal interpretation; Leibniz, the inventor of the\nacquiescent doctrine which Bolingbroke transmitted to the _Essay on\nMan_, said that he drew a good likeness of a bad prince; Herder reports\nhim to mean that a rogue need not be a fool; Fichte frankly set himself\nto rehabilitate him. In the end, the great master of modern philosophy\npronounces in his favour, and declares it absurd to robe a prince in the\ncowl of a monk: \"Ein politischer Denker und Kuenstler dessen erfahrener\nund tiefer Verstand aus den geschichtlich gegebenen Verhaeltnissen\nbesser, als aus den Grundsaetzen der Metaphysik, die politischen\nNothwendigkeiten, den Charakter, die Bildung und Aufgabe weltlicher\nHerrschaft zu begreifen wusste.--Da man weiss, dass politische\nMachtfragen nie, am Wenigsten in einem verderbten Volke, mit den Mitteln\nder Moral zu loesen sind, so ist es unverstaendig, das Buch vom Fuersten zu\nverschreien. Machiavelli hatte einen Herrscher zu schildern, keinen\nKlosterbruder.\"\n\nRanke was a grateful student of Fichte when he spoke of Machiavelli as a\nmeritorious writer, maligned by people who could not understand him:\n\"Einem Autor von hoechstem Verdienst, und der keineswegs ein boeser\nMensch war.--Die falsche Auffassung des _Principe_ beruht eben darauf,\ndass man die Lehren Machiavells als allgemeine betrachtet, waehrend sie\nbloss Anweisungen fuer einen bestimmten Zweck sind.\" To Gervinus, in\n1853, he is \"der grosse Seher,\" the prophet of the modern world: \"Er\nerrieth den Geist der neuern Geschichte.\" Gervinus was a democratic\nLiberal, and, taken with Gentz from another quarter, he shows how widely\nthe elements of the Machiavellian restoration were spread over Europe.\nGentz had not forgotten his classics in the service of Austria when he\nwrote to a friend: \"Wenn selbst das Recht je verletzt werden darf, so\ngeschehe es, um die rechtmaessige Macht zu erhalten; in allem Uebrigen\nherrsche es unbedingt\" Twesten is as well persuaded as Machiavelli that\nthe world cannot be governed \"con Pater nostri in mano,\" and he deemed\nthat patriotism atoned for his errors: \"Dass der weltgeschichtliche\nFortschritt nicht mit Schonung und Gelindigkeit, nicht in den Formen des\nRechts vollzogen werden koennte, hat die Geschichte aller Laender\nbestaetigt.--Auch Machiavellis Suenden moegen wir als gesuehnt betrachten,\ndurch das hochsinnige Streben fuer das Grosse und das Ansehen seines\nVolkes.\" One censor of Frederic, Boretius, makes him answerable for a\ngreat deal of presuming criticism: \"Die Gelehrten sind bis heute in\nihrem Urtheil ueber Machiavelli nicht einig, die oeffentliche Meinung ist\nhierin gluecklicher.--Die oeffentliche Meinung kann sich fuer alle diese\nWeisheit beim alten Fritz bedanken.\" On the eve of the campaign in\nBohemia, Herbst pointed out that Machiavelli, though previously a\nrepublican, sacrificed liberty to unity: \"Der Einheit soll die innere\nFreiheit--Machiavelli war kurz zuvor noch begeisterter Anhaenger der\nRepublik--geopfert werden.\" According to Feuerlein the heart of the\nwriter was loyal, but the conditions of the problem were inexorable; and\nKlein detects in _The Prince_, and even in the _Mandragola_, \"die\nreformatorische Absicht eines Sittenspiegels.\" Chowanetz wrote a book to\nhold up Machiavelli as a teacher of all ages, but especially of our own:\n\"Die Absicht aber, welche Machiavel mit seinem Buche verband, ist\ntrefflich fuer alle Zeiten.\" And Weitzel hardly knows a better writer, or\none less worthy of an evil name: \"Im Interesse der Menschheit und\ngesetzmaessiger Verfassungen kann kaum ein besseres Werk geschrieben\nwerden.--Wohl ist mancher in der Geschichte, wie in der Tradition der\nVoelker, auf eine unschuldige Weise um seinen verdienten, oder zu einem\nunverdienten Rufe gekommen, aber keiner vielleicht unschuldiger als\nMachiavelli.\"\n\nThese are remote and forgotten names. Stronger men of the imperial epoch\nhave resumed the theme with better means of judging, and yet with no\nharsher judgment. Hartwig sums up his penetrating and severe analysis by\nconfessing that the world as Machiavelli saw it, without a conscience,\nis the real world of history as it is: \"Die Thatsachen selbst scheinen\nuns das Geheimniss ihrer Existenz zu verrathen; wir glauben vor uns die\nFaeden sich verknuepfen und verschlingen zu sehen, deren Gewebe die\nWeltgeschichte ist.\" Gaspary thinks that he hated iniquity, but that he\nknew of no righteousness apart from the State: \"Er lobte mit Waerme das\nGute und tadelte mit Abscheu das Boese; aber er studirte auch dieses mit\nInteresse.--Er erkennt eben keine Moral, wie keine Religion, ueber dem\nStaate, sondern nur in demselben; die Menschen sind von Natur schlecht,\ndie Gesetze machen sie gut.--Wo es kein Gericht giebt, bei dem man\nklagen koennte, wie in den Handlungen der Fuersten, betrachtet man immer\ndas Ende.\" The common opinion is expressed by Baumgarten in his _Charles\nthe Fifth_, that the grandeur of the purpose assures indulgence to the\nmeans proposed: \"Wenn die Umstaende zum Wortbruch, zur Grausamkeit,\nHabgier, Luege treiben, so hat man sich nicht etwa mit Bedauern, dass die\nNot dazu zwinge, sondern schlechtweg, weil es eben politisch zweckmaessig\nist und ohne alles Bedenken so zu verhalten.--Ihre Deduktionen sind uns\nunertraeglich, wenn wir nicht sagen koennen: alle diese schrecklichen\nDinge empfahl Machiavelli, weil er nur durch sie die Befreiung seines\nVaterlandes zu erreichen hoffte. Dieses erhabene Ziel macht uns die\nfuerchterlichen Mittel annehmbar, welche Machiavelli seinem Fuersten\nempfiehlt.\" Hillebrand was a more international German; he had swum in\nmany European waters, and wrote in three languages. He is scarcely less\nfavourable in his interpretation: \"Cette dictature, il ne faut jamais le\nperdre de vue, ne serait jamais que transitoire, et devrait faire place\na un gouvernement libre des que la grande reforme nationale et sociale\nserait accomplie.--Il a parfaitement conscience du mal. L'atmosphere\nambiante de son siecle et de son pays n'a nullement oblitere son sens\nmoral--Il a si bien conscience de l'enormite de ces crimes, qu'il la\ncondamne hautement lorsque la derniere necessite ne les impose pas.\"\n\nAmong these utterances of capable and distinguished men, it will be seen\nthat some are partially true, and others, without a particle of truth,\nare at least representative and significant, and serve to bring\nMachiavelli within fathomable depth. He is the earliest conscious and\narticulate exponent of certain living forces in the present world.\nReligion, progressive enlightenment, the perpetual vigilance of public\nopinion, have not reduced his empire, or disproved the justice of his\nconception of mankind. He obtains a new lease of life from causes that\nare still prevailing, and from doctrines that are apparent in politics,\nphilosophy, and science. Without sparing censure, or employing for\ncomparison the grosser symptoms of the age, we find him near our common\nlevel, and perceive that he is not a vanishing type, but a constant and\ncontemporary influence. Where it is impossible to praise, to defend, or\nto excuse, the burden of blame may yet be lightened by adjustment and\ndistribution, and he is more rationally intelligible when illustrated by\nlights falling not only from the century he wrote in, but from our own,\nwhich has seen the course of its history twenty-five times diverted by\nactual or attempted crime.\n\n\n\n\nVIII\n\nMR. GOLDWIN SMITH'S IRISH HISTORY[322]\n\n\nWhen Macaulay republished his Essays from the _Edinburgh Review_, he had\nalready commenced the great work by which his name will be remembered;\nand he had the prudence to exclude from the collection his early paper\non the art of historical writing. In the maturity of his powers, he was\nrightly unwilling to bring into notice the theories of his youth. At a\ntime when he was about to claim a place among the first historians, it\nwould have been injudicious to remind men of the manner in which he had\ndescribed the objects of his emulation or of his rivalry--how in his\njudgment the speeches of Thucydides violate the decencies of fiction,\nand give to his book something of the character of the Chinese\npleasure-grounds, whilst his political observations are very\nsuperficial; how Polybius has no other merit than that of a faithful\nnarrator of facts; and how in the nineteenth century, from the practice\nof distorting narrative in conformity with theory, \"history proper is\ndisappearing.\" But in that essay, although the judgments are puerile,\nthe ideal at which the writer afterwards aimed is distinctly drawn, and\nhis own character is prefigured in the description of the author of a\nhistory of England as it ought to be, who \"gives to truth those\nattractions which have been usurped by fiction,\" \"intersperses the\ndetails which are the charm of historical romances,\" and \"reclaims those\nmaterials which the novelist has appropriated.\"\n\nMr. Goldwin Smith, like Macaulay, has written on the study of history,\nand he has been a keen critic of other historians before becoming one\nhimself. It is a bold thing for a man to bring theory so near to\nexecution, and, amidst dispute on his principles and resentment at his\ncriticism, to give an opportunity of testing his theories by his own\npractice, and of applying his own canons to his performance. It reminds\nus of the professor of Cologne, who wrote the best Latin poem of modern\ntimes, as a model for his pupils; and of the author of an attack on\nDryden's _Virgil_, who is styled by Pope the \"fairest of critics,\"\n\"because,\" says Johnson, \"he exhibited his own version to be compared\nwith that which he condemned.\" The work in which the professor of\nhistory and critic of historians teaches by example is not unworthy of\nhis theory, whilst some of its defects may be explained by it.\n\nThe point which most closely connects Mr. Goldwin Smith's previous\nwritings with his _Irish History_ is his vindication of a moral code\nagainst those who identify moral with physical laws, who consider the\noutward regularity with which actions are done to be the inward reason\nwhy they must be done, and who conceive that all laws are opposed to\nfreedom. In his opposition to this materialism, he goes in one respect\ntoo far, in another not far enough.\n\nOn the one hand, whilst defending liberty and morality, he has not\nsufficient perception of the spiritual element; and on the other, he\nseems to fear that it would be a concession to his antagonists to dwell\non the constant laws by which nature asserts herself, and on the\nregularity with which like causes produce like effects. Yet it is on the\nobservation of these laws that political, social, and economical science\nrests; and it is by the knowledge of them that a scientific historian is\nguided in grouping his matter. In this he differs from the artist, whose\nprinciple of arrangement is drawn from himself, not from external\nnature; and from the annalist, who has no arrangement, since he sees,\nnot the connection, but the succession of events. Facts are intelligible\nand instructive,--or, in other words, history exhibits truths as well\nas facts,--when they are seen not merely as they follow, but as they\ncorrespond; not merely as they have happened, but as they are\nparalleled. The fate of Ireland is to be understood not simply from the\nlight of English and Irish history, but by the general history of other\nconquests, colonies, dependencies, and establishments. In this sort of\nillustration by analogy and contrast Mr. Goldwin Smith is particularly\ninfelicitous. Nor does Providence gain what science loses by his\ntreatment of history. He rejects materialism, but he confines his view\nto motives and forces which are purely human.\n\nThe Catholic Church receives, therefore, very imperfect measure at his\nhands. Her spiritual character and purpose he cannot discern behind the\ntemporal instruments and appendages of her existence; he confounds\nauthority with influence, devotion with bigotry, power with force of\narms, and estimates the vigour and durability of Catholicism by\ncriterions as material as those of the philosophers he has so vehemently\nand so ably refuted. Most Protestant writers fail in approbation; he\nfails in appreciation. It is not so much a religious feeling that makes\nhim unjust, as a way of thinking which, in great measure, ignores the\nsupernatural, and therefore precludes a just estimate of religion in\ngeneral, and of Catholicism in particular. Hence he is unjust rather to\nthe nature than to the actions of the Church. He caricatures more than\nhe libels her. He is much less given to misrepresentation and calumny\nthan Macaulay, but he has a less exalted idea of the history and\ncharacter of Catholicism. As he underrates what is divine, so he has no\nvery high standard for the actions of men, and he is liberal in\nadmitting extenuating circumstances. Though he never suspends the\nseverity of his moral judgment in consideration of the purpose or the\nresult, yet he is induced by a variety of arguments to mitigate its\nrigour. In accordance with the theory he has formerly developed, he is\nconstantly sitting in judgment; and he discusses the morality of men and\nactions far oftener than history--which has very different problems to\nsolve--either requires or tolerates. De Maistre says that in our time\ncompassion is reserved for the guilty. Mr. Goldwin Smith is a merciful\njudge, whose compassion generally increases in proportion to the\ngreatness of the culprit; and he has a sympathy for what is done in the\ngrand style, which balances his hatred of what is wrongly done.\n\nIt would not be fair to judge of an author's notion and powers of\nresearch by a hasty and popular production. Mr. Goldwin Smith has\ncollected quite enough information for the purpose for which he has used\nit, and he has not failed through want of industry. The test of solidity\nis not the quantity read, but the mode in which the knowledge has been\ncollected and used. Method, not genius, or eloquence, or erudition,\nmakes the historian. He may be discovered most easily by his use of\nauthorities. The first question is, whether the writer understands the\ncomparative value of sources of information, and has the habit of giving\nprecedence to the most trustworthy informant. There are some vague\nindications that Mr. Goldwin Smith does not understand the importance of\nthis fundamental rule. In his Inaugural Lecture, published two years\nago, the following extravagant sentence occurs: \"Before the Revolution,\nthe fervour and the austerity of Rousseau had cast out from good society\nthe levity and sensuality of Voltaire\" (p. 15). This view--which he\nappears to have abandoned, for in his _Irish History_ he tells us that\nFrance \"has now become the eldest daughter of Voltaire\"--he supports by\na reference to an abridgment of French history, much and justly esteemed\nin French schools, but, like all abridgments, not founded on original\nknowledge, and disfigured by exaggeration in the colouring. Moreover,\nthe passage he refers to has been misinterpreted. In the _Irish History_\nMr. Goldwin Smith quotes, for the character of the early Celts, without\nany sufficient reason, another French historian, Martin, who has no\ngreat authority, and the younger Thierry, who has none at all. This is a\npoint of very little weight by itself; but until our author vindicates\nhis research by other writings, it is not in his favour.\n\nThe defects of Mr. Goldwin Smith's historic art, his lax criticism, his\nsuperficial acquaintance with foreign countries, his occasional\nproneness to sacrifice accuracy for the sake of rhetorical effect, his\naversion for spiritual things, are all covered by one transcendent\nmerit, which, in a man of so much ability, promises great results.\n\nWriters the most learned, the most accurate in details, and the soundest\nin tendency, frequently fall into a habit which can neither be cured nor\npardoned,--the habit of making history into the proof of their theories.\nThe absence of a definite didactic purpose is the only security for the\ngood faith of a historian. This most rare virtue Mr. Goldwin Smith\npossesses in a high degree. He writes to tell the truths he finds, not\nto prove the truths which he believes. In character and design he is\neminently truthful and fair, though not equally so in execution. His\ncandour never fails him, and he is never betrayed by his temper; yet his\ndefective knowledge of general history, and his crude notions of the\nChurch, have made him write many things which are untrue, and some which\nare unjust. Prejudice is in all men of such early growth, and so\ndifficult to eradicate, that it becomes a misfortune rather than a\nreproach, especially if it is due to ignorance and not to passion, and\nif it has not its seat in the will. In the case of Mr. Goldwin Smith it\nis of the curable and harmless kind. The fairness of his intention is\nfar beyond his knowledge. When he is unjust, it is not from hatred;\nwhere he is impartial, it is not always from the copiousness of his\ninformation. His prejudices are of a nature which his ability and\nhonesty will in time inevitably overcome.\n\nThe general result and moral of his book is excellent. He shows that the\nland-question has been from the beginning the great difficulty in\nIreland; and he concludes with a condemnation of the Established Church,\nand a prophecy of its approaching fall. The weakness of Ireland and the\nguilt of England are not disguised; and the author has not written to\nstimulate the anger of one nation or to attenuate the remorse of the\nother. To both he gives wise and statesman-like advice, that may soon be\nvery opportune. The first American war was the commencement of the\ndeliverance of Ireland, and it may be that a new American war will\ncomplete the work of regeneration which the first began. Agreeing as we\ndo with the policy of the author, and admiring the spirit of his book,\nwe shall not attempt either to enforce or to dispute his conclusions,\nand we shall confine our remarks to less essential points on which he\nappears to us in the wrong.\n\nThere are several instances of inaccuracy and negligence which, however\ntrivial in themselves, tend to prove that the author is not always very\nscrupulous in speaking of things he has not studied. A purist so severe\nas to write \"Kelt\" for \"Celt\" ought not to call Mercury, originally a\nvery different personage from Hermes, one of \"the legendary authors of\nGreek civilisation\" (p. 43); and we do not believe that anybody who had\nread the writings of the two primates could call Bramhall \"an inferior\ncounterpart of Laud\" (p. 105). In a loftier mood, and therefore\napparently with still greater license, Mr. Goldwin Smith declares that\n\"the glorious blood of Orange could scarcely have run in a low\npersecutor's veins\" (p. 123). The blood of Orange ran in the veins of\nWilliam the Silent, the threefold hypocrite, who confessed Catholicism\nwhilst he hoped to retain his influence at court, Lutheranism when there\nwas a chance of obtaining assistance from the German princes, Calvinism\nwhen he was forced to resort to religion in order to excite the people\nagainst the crown, and who persecuted the Protestants in Orange and the\nCatholics in Holland. These, however, are matters of no consequence\nwhatever in a political history of Ireland; but we find ourselves at\nissue with the author on the important question of political freedom.\n\"Even the highly civilised Kelt of France, familiar as he is with\ntheories of political liberty, seems almost incapable of sustaining\nfree institutions. After a moment of constitutional government, he\nreverts, with a bias which the fatalist might call irresistible, to\ndespotism in some form\" (p. 18). The warning so frequently uttered by\nBurke in his last years, to fly from the liberty of France, is still\nmore needful now that French liberty has exhibited itself in a far more\nseductive light. The danger is more subtle, when able men confound\npolitical forms with popular rights. France has never been governed by a\nConstitution since 1792, if by a Constitution is meant a definite rule\nand limitation of the governing power. It is not that the French failed\nto preserve the forms of parliamentary government, but that those forms\nno more implied freedom than the glory which the Empire has twice given\nin their stead. It is a serious fault in our author that he has not\nunderstood so essential a distinction. Has he not read the _Rights of\nMan_, by Tom Paine?--\n\n   It is not because a part of the government is elective that makes it\n   less a despotism, if the persons so elected possess afterwards, as a\n   parliament, unlimited powers. Election, in this case, becomes\n   separated from representation, and the candidates are candidates for\n   despotism.[323]\n\nNapoleon once consulted the cleverest among the politicians who served\nhim, respecting the durability of some of his institutions. \"Ask\nyourself,\" was the answer, \"what it would cost you to destroy them. If\nthe destruction would cost no effort, you have created nothing; for\npolitically, as well as physically, only that which resists endures.\" In\nthe year 1802 the same great writer said: \"Nothing is more pernicious in\na monarchy than the principles and the forms of democracy, for they\nallow no alternative, but despotism and revolutions.\" With the\nadditional experience of half a century, a writer not inferior to the\nlast repeats exactly the same idea:--\n\n   Of all societies in the world, those which will always have most\n   difficulty in permanently escaping absolute government will be\n   precisely those societies in which aristocracy is no more, and can\n   no more be.[324]\n\nFrench constitutionalism was but a form by which the absence of\nself-government was concealed. The State was as despotic under Villele\nor Guizot as under either of the Bonapartes. The Restoration fenced\nitself round with artificial creations, having no root in the condition\nor in the sympathies of the people; these creations simply weakened it\nby making it unpopular. The hereditary peerage was an anomaly in a\ncountry unused to primogeniture, and so was the revival, in a nation of\nsceptics, of the Gallican union between Church and State. The monarchy\nof July, which was more suited to the nature of French society, and was\nthus enabled to crush a series of insurrections, was at last forced, by\nits position and by the necessity of self-preservation, to assume a very\ndespotic character. After the fortifications of Paris were begun, a\ntendency set in which, under a younger sovereign, would have led to a\nsystem hardly distinguishable from that which now prevails; and there\nare princes in the House of Orleans whose government would develop the\nprinciple of democracy in a manner not very remote from the institutions\nof the second Empire. It is liberalism more than despotism that is\nopposed to liberty in France; and it is a most dangerous error to\nimagine that the Governments of the French Charter really resemble ours.\nThere are States without any parliament at all, whose principles and\nfundamental institutions are in much closer harmony with our system of\nautonomy. Mr. Goldwin Smith sees half the truth, that there is something\nin the French nation which incapacitates it for liberty; but he does not\nsee that what they have always sought, and sometimes enjoyed, is not\nfreedom; that their liberty must diminish in proportion as their ideal\nis attained; and that they are not yet familiar with the theory of\npolitical rights. With this false notion of what constitutes liberty, it\nis not surprising that he should repeatedly dwell on its connection\nwith Protestantism, and talk of \"the political liberty which\nProtestantism brought in its train\" (p. 120). Such phrases may console a\nProtestant reader of a book fatal to the Protestant ascendency in\nIreland; but as there are no arguments in support of them, and as they\nare strangely contradicted by the facts in the context, Mr. Goldwin\nSmith resorts to the ingenious artifice of calling to mind as many ugly\nstories about Catholics as he can. The notion constantly recurs that,\nthough the Protestants were very wicked in Ireland, it was against their\nprinciples and general practice, and is due to the Catholics, whose\nsystem naturally led them to be tyrannical and cruel, and thus provoked\nretaliation. Mr. Smith might have been reminded by Peter Plymley that\nwhen Protestantism has had its own way it has uniformly been averse to\nfreedom: \"What has Protestantism done for liberty in Denmark, in Sweden,\nthroughout the north of Germany, and in Prussia?\"--not much less than\ndemocracy has done in France. An admirer of the constitutions of 1791,\n1814, or 1830 may be excused if he is not very severe on the absolutism\nof Protestant countries.\n\nMr. Goldwin Smith mistakes the character of the invasion of Ireland\nbecause he has not understood the relative position of the civilisation\nof the two countries at the time when it occurred. That of the Celts was\nin many respects more refined than that of the Normans. The Celts are\nnot among the progressive, initiative races, but among those which\nsupply the materials rather than the impulse of history, and are either\nstationary or retrogressive. The Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, and\nthe Teutons are the only makers of history, the only authors of\nadvancement. Other races possessing a highly developed language, a\ncopious literature, a speculative religion, enjoying luxury and art,\nattain to a certain pitch of cultivation which they are unable either to\ncommunicate or to increase. They are a negative element in the world;\nsometimes the barrier, sometimes the instrument, sometimes the material\nof those races to whom it is given to originate and to advance. Their\nexistence is either passive, or reactionary and destructive, when, after\nintervening like the blind forces of nature, they speedily exhibit their\nuncreative character, and leave others to pursue the course to which\nthey have pointed. The Chinese are a people of this kind. They have long\nremained stationary, and succeeded in excluding the influences of\ngeneral history. So the Hindoos; being Pantheists, they have no history\nof their own, but supply objects for commerce and for conquest. So the\nHuns, whose appearance gave a sudden impetus to a stagnant world. So the\nSlavonians, who tell only in the mass, and whose influence is\nascertainable sometimes by adding to the momentum of active forces,\nsometimes by impeding through inertness the progress of mankind.\n\nTo this class of nations also belong the Celts of Gaul. The Roman and\nthe German conquerors have not altered their character as it was drawn\ntwo thousand years ago. They have a history, but it is not theirs; their\nnature remains unchanged, their history is the history of the invaders.\nThe revolution was the revival of the conquered race, and their reaction\nagainst the creations of their masters. But it has been cunning only to\ndestroy; it has not given life to one constructive idea, or durability\nto one new institution; and it has exhibited to the world an\nunparalleled political incapacity, which was announced by Burke, and\nanalysed by Tocqueville, in works which are the crowning pieces of two\ngreat literatures.\n\nThe Celts of these islands, in like manner, waited for a foreign\ninfluence to set in action the rich treasure which in their own hands\ncould be of no avail. Their language was more flexible, their poetry and\nmusic more copious, than those of the Anglo-Normans. Their laws, if we\nmay judge from those of Wales, display a society in some respects highly\ncultivated. But, like the rest of that group of nations to which they\nbelong, there was not in them the incentive to action and progress which\nis given by the consciousness of a part in human destiny, by the\ninspiration of a high idea, or even by the natural development of\ninstitutions. Their life and literature were aimless and wasteful.\nWithout combination or concentration, they had no star to guide them in\nan onward course; and the progress of dawn into day was no more to them\nthan to the flocks and to the forests.\n\nBefore the Danish wars, and the decay, which is described by St. Bernard\nin terms which must not be taken quite literally, had led to the English\ninvasion, there was probably as much material, certainly as much\nspiritual, culture in Ireland as in any country in the West; but there\nwas not that by whose sustaining force alone these things endure, by\nwhich alone the place of nations in history is determined--there was no\npolitical civilisation. The State did not keep pace with the progress of\nsociety. This is the essential and decisive inferiority of the Celtic\nrace, as conspicuous among the Irish in the twelfth century as among the\nFrench in our own. They gave way before the higher political aptitude of\nthe English.\n\nThe issue of an invasion is generally decided by this political\naptitude, and the consequences of conquest always depend on it.\nSubjection to a people of a higher capacity for government is of itself\nno misfortune; and it is to most countries the condition of their\npolitical advancement. The Greeks were more highly cultivated than the\nRomans, the Gauls than the Franks; yet in both cases the higher\npolitical intelligence prevailed. For a long time the English had,\nperhaps, no other superiority over the Irish; yet this alone would have\nmade the conquest a great blessing to Ireland, but for the separation of\nthe races. Conquering races necessarily bring with them their own system\nof government, and there is no other way of introducing it. A nation can\nobtain political education only by dependence on another. Art,\nliterature, and science may be communicated by the conquered to the\nconqueror; but government can be taught only by governing, therefore\nonly by the governors; politics can only be learnt in this school. The\nmost uncivilised of the barbarians, whilst they slowly and imperfectly\nlearned the arts of Rome, at once remodelled its laws. The two kinds of\ncivilisation, social and political, are wholly unconnected with each\nother. Either may subsist, in high perfection, alone. Polity grows like\nlanguage, and is part of a people's nature, not dependent on its will.\nOne or the other can be developed, modified, corrected; but they cannot\nbe subverted or changed by the people itself without an act of suicide.\nOrganic change, if it comes at all, must come from abroad. Revolution is\na malady, a frenzy, an interruption of the nation's growth, sometimes\nfatal to its existence, often to its independence. In this case\nrevolution, by making the nation subject to others, may be the occasion\nof a new development. But it is not conceivable that a nation should\narbitrarily and spontaneously cast off its history, reject its\ntraditions, abrogate its law and government, and commence a new\npolitical existence.\n\nNothing in the experience of ages, or in the nature of man, allows us to\nbelieve that the attempt of France to establish a durable edifice on the\nruins of 1789, without using the old materials, can ever succeed, or\nthat she can ever emerge from the vicious circle of the last seventy\nyears, except by returning to the principle which she then repudiated,\nand by admitting, that if States would live, they must preserve their\norganic connection with their origin and history, which are their root\nand their stem; that they are not voluntary creations of human wisdom;\nand that men labour in vain who would construct them without\nacknowledging God as the artificer.\n\nTheorists who hold it to be a wrong that a nation should belong to a\nforeign State are therefore in contradiction with the law of civil\nprogress. This law, or rather necessity, which is as absolute as the law\nthat binds society together, is the force which makes us need one\nanother, and only enables us to obtain what we need on terms, not of\nequality, but of dominion and subjection, in domestic, economic, or\npolitical relations. The political theory of nationality is in\ncontradiction with the historic nation. Since a nation derives its ideas\nand instincts of government, as much as its temperament and its\nlanguage, from God, acting through the influences of nature and of\nhistory, these ideas and instincts are originally and essentially\npeculiar to it, and not separable from it; they have no practical value\nin themselves when divided from the capacity which corresponds to them.\nNational qualities are the incarnations of political ideas. No people\ncan receive its government from another without receiving at the same\ntime the ministers of government. The workman must travel with the work.\nSuch changes can only be accomplished by submission to a foreign State,\nor to another race. Europe has seen two great instances of such\nconquests, extending over centuries,--the Roman Empire, and the\nsettlement of the barbarians in the West. This it is which gives unity\nto the history of the Middle Ages. The Romans established a universal\nempire by subjecting all countries to the authority of a single power.\nThe barbarians introduced into all a single system of law, and thus\nbecame the instrument of a universal Church. The same spirit of freedom,\nthe same notions of the State, pervade all the _Leges Barbarorum_, and\nall the polities they founded in Europe and Asia. They differ widely in\nthe surrounding conditions, in the state of society, in the degree of\nadvancement, in almost all external things. The principle common to them\nall is to acknowledge the freedom of the Church as a corporation and a\nproprietor, and in virtue of the principle of self-government to allow\nreligion to develop her influence in the State. The great migration\nwhich terminated in the Norman conquests and in the Crusades gave the\ndominion of the Latin world to the Teutonic chivalry, and to the Church\nher proper place. All other countries sank into despotism, into schism,\nand at last into barbarism, under the Tartars or the Turks. The union\nbetween the Teutonic races and the Holy See was founded on their\npolitical qualities more than on their religious fervour. In modern\ntimes, the most pious Catholics have often tyrannised over the Church.\nIn the Middle Ages her liberty was often secured and respected where her\nspiritual injunctions were least obeyed.\n\nThe growth of the feudal system coinciding with the general decay of\nmorals led, in the eleventh century, to new efforts of the Church to\npreserve her freedom. The Holy See was delivered from the Roman factions\nby the most illustrious of the emperors, and a series of German Popes\ncommenced the great reform. Other princes were unwilling to submit to\nthe authority of the imperial nominees, and the kings of France and\nCastile showed symptoms of resistance, in which they were supported by\nthe heresy of Berengarius. The conduct of Henry IV. delivered the Church\nfrom the patronage of the Empire, whilst the Normans defended her\nagainst the Gallican tendencies and the feudal tyranny. In Sicily, the\nNormans consented to hold their power from the Pope; and in Normandy,\nBerengarius found a successful adversary, and the King of France a\nvassal who compelled him to abandon his designs. The chaplain of the\nConqueror describes his government in terms which show how singularly it\nfulfilled the conditions which the Church requires. He tells us that\nWilliam established in Normandy a truly Christian order; that every\nvillage, town, and castle enjoyed its own privileges; and that, while\nother princes either forbade the erection of churches or seized their\nendowments, he left his subjects free to make pious gifts. In his reign\nand by his conduct the word \"bigot\" ceased to be a term of reproach, and\ncame to signify what we now should call \"ultramontane.\" He was the\nforemost of those Normans who were called by the Holy See to reclaim\nwhat was degenerate, and to renovate the declining States of the North.\n\nWhere the Church addressed herself to the conversion of races of purely\nTeutonic origin, as in Scandinavia, her missionaries achieved the work.\nIn other countries, as in Poland and Hungary, political dependence on\nthe Empire was the channel and safeguard of her influence. The Norman\nconquest of England and of Ireland differs from all of these. In both\nislands the faith had been freely preached, adopted, and preserved. The\nrulers and the people were Catholic. The last Saxon king who died\nbefore the Conquest was a saint. The last archbishop of Dublin appointed\nbefore the invasion was a saint. Neither of the invasions can be\nexplained simply by the demoralisation of the clergy, or by the\nspiritual destitution of the people.\n\nCatholicism spreads among the nations, not only as a doctrine, but as an\ninstitution. \"The Church,\" says Mr. Goldwin Smith, \"is not a disembodied\nspirit, but a spirit embodied in human society.\" Her teaching is\ndirected to the inner man, and is confined to the social order; but her\ndiscipline touches on the political. She cannot permanently ignore the\nacts and character of the State, or escape its notice. Whilst she\npreaches submission to authorities ordained by God, her nature, not her\ninterest, compels her to exert an involuntary influence upon them. The\njealousy so often exhibited by governments is not without reason, for\nthe free action of the Church is the test of the free constitution of\nthe State; and without such free constitution there must necessarily\nensue either persecution or revolution. Between the settled organisation\nof Catholicism and every form of arbitrary power, there is an\nincompatibility which must terminate in conflict. In a State which\npossesses no security for authority or freedom, the Church must either\nfight or succumb. Now, as authority and freedom, the conditions of her\nexistence, can only be obtained through the instrumentality of certain\nnations, she depends on the aid of these nations. Religion alone cannot\ncivilise men, or secure its own conquest. It promotes civilisation where\nit has power; but it has not power where its way is not prepared. Its\ncivilising influence is chiefly indirect, and acts by its needs and\nwants as much as by the fulness of its ideas. So Christianity extends\nitself by the aid of the secular power, relying, not on the victories of\nChristian arms, but on the progress of institutions and ideas that\nharmonise with ecclesiastical freedom. Hence, those who have most\nactively served the interests of the Church are not always those who\nhave been most faithful to her doctrines. The work which the Goth and\nthe Frank had done on the continent of Europe the Normans came to do in\nEngland, where it had been done before but had failed, and in Ireland,\nwhere neither Roman nor German influences had entered.\n\nThus the theory of nationality, unknown to Catholic ages, is\ninconsistent both with political reason and with Christianity, which\nrequires the dominion of race over race, and whose path was made\nstraight by two universal empires. The missionary may outstrip, in his\ndevoted zeal, the progress of trade or of arms; but the seed that he\nplants will not take root, unprotected by those ideas of right and duty\nwhich first came into the world with the tribes who destroyed the\ncivilisation of antiquity, and whose descendants are in our day carrying\nthose ideas to every quarter of the world. It was as impossible to\nrealise in Ireland the mediaeval notions of ecclesiastical liberty\nwithout a great political reform, as to put an end to the dissolution of\nsociety and the feuds of princes without the authority of a supreme\nlord.\n\nThere is one institution of those days to which Mr. Goldwin Smith has\nnot done entire justice.\n\n   It is needless to say that the Eric, or pecuniary composition for\n   blood, in place of capital or other punishment, which the Brehon law\n   sanctioned, is the reproach of all primitive codes, and of none. It\n   is the first step from the license of savage revenge to the ordered\n   justice of a regular law (p. 41).\n\nPecuniary composition for blood belongs to an advanced period of defined\nand regular criminal jurisprudence. In the lowest form of civil society,\nwhen the State is not yet distinct from the family, the family is\ncompelled to defend itself; and the only protection of society is the\nvendetta. It is the private right of self-defence combined with the\npublic office of punishment, and therefore not only a privilege but an\nobligation. The whole family is bound to avenge the injury; but the duty\nrests first of all with the heir. Precedency in the office of avenger is\nnaturally connected with a first claim in inheritance; and the\nsuccession to property is determined by the law of revenge. This leads\nboth to primogeniture, because the eldest son is most likely to be\ncapable of punishing the culprit; and, for the same reason, to\nmodifications of primogeniture, by the preference of the brother before\nthe grandson, and of the male line before the female. A practice which\nappears barbarous is, therefore, one of the foundations of civilisation,\nand the origin of some of the refinements of law. In this state of\nsociety there is no distinction between civil and criminal law; an\ninjury is looked upon as a private wrong, not, as religion considers it,\na sin, or, as the State considers it, a crime.\n\nSomething very similar occurs in feudal society. Here all the barons\nwere virtually equal to each other, and without any superior to punish\ntheir crimes or to avenge their wrongs. They were, therefore, compelled\nto obtain safety or reparation, like sovereigns, by force of arms. What\nwar is among States, the feud is in feudal society, and the vengeance of\nblood in societies not yet matured into States--a substitute for the\nfixed administration of justice.\n\nThe assumption of this duty by the State begins with the recognisance of\nacts done against the State itself. At first, political crimes alone are\nvisited with a public penalty; private injuries demand no public\nexpiation, but only satisfaction of the injured party. This appears in\nits most rudimentary form in the _lex talionis_. Society requires that\npunishment should be inflicted by the State, in order to prevent\ncontinual disorders. If the injured party could be satisfied, and his\nduty fulfilled without inflicting on the criminal an injury\ncorresponding to that which he had done, society was obviously the\ngainer. At first it was optional to accept or to refuse satisfaction;\nafterwards it was made obligatory.\n\nWhere property was so valuable that its loss was visited on the life or\nlimb of the robber, and injuries against property were made a question\nof life and death, it soon followed that injury to life could be made a\nquestion of payment. To expiate robbery by death, and to expiate murder\nby the payment of a fine, are correlative ideas. Practically this\ncustom often told with a barbarous inequality against those who were too\npoor to purchase forgiveness; but it was otherwise both just and humane\nin principle, and it was generally encouraged by the Church. For in her\neyes the criminal was guilty of an act of which it was necessary that he\nshould repent; this made her desire, not his destruction, but his\nconversion. She tried, therefore, to save his life, and to put an end to\nrevenge, mutilation, and servitude; and for all this the alternative was\ncompensation. This purpose was served by the right of asylum. The Church\nsurrendered the fugitive only on condition that his life and person\nshould be spared in consideration of a lawful fine, which she often paid\nfor him herself. \"Concedatur ei vita et omnia membra. Emendat autem\ncausam in quantum potuerit,\" says a law of Charlemagne, given in the\nyear 785, when the influence of religion on legislation was most\npowerful in Europe.\n\nNo idea occurs more frequently in the work we are reviewing than that of\nthe persecuting character of the Catholic Church; it is used as a\nperpetual apology for the penal laws in Ireland:--\n\n   \"When the Catholics writhe under this wrong, let them turn their eyes\n   to the history of Catholic countries, and remember that, while the\n   Catholic Church was stripped of her endowments and doomed to\n   political degradation by Protestant persecutors in Ireland, the\n   Protestant churches were exterminated with fire and sword by Catholic\n   persecutors in France, Austria, Flanders, Italy, and Spain\" (p. 92).\n   He speaks of Catholicism as \"a religion which all Protestants\n   believed to be idolatrous, and knew by fearful experience to be\n   persecuting\" (p. 113). \"It would not be difficult to point to\n   persecuting laws more sanguinary than these. Spain, France, and\n   Austria will at once supply signal examples.... That persecution was\n   the vice of an age and not only of a particular religion, that it\n   disgraced Protestantism as well as Catholicism, is true. But no one\n   who reads the religious history of Europe with an open mind can fail\n   to perceive that the persecutions carried on by Protestants were far\n   less bloody and less extensive than those carried on by Catholics;\n   that they were more frequently excusable as acts of retaliation; that\n   they arose more from political alarm, and less from the spirit of the\n   religion; and that the temper of their authors yielded more rapidly\n   to the advancing influence of humanity and civilisation\" (pp. 127.\n   129).\n\nAll these arguments are fallacies; but as the statements at the same\ntime are full of error, we believe that the author is wrong because he\nhas not studied the question, not because he has designed to\nmisrepresent it. The fact that he does not distinguish from each other\nthe various kinds and occasions of persecution, proves that he is wholly\nignorant of the things with which it is connected.\n\nPersecution is the vice of particular religions, and the misfortune of\nparticular stages of political society. It is the resource by which\nStates that would be subverted by religious liberty escape the more\ndangerous alternative of imposing religious disabilities. The exclusion\nof a part of the community by reason of its faith from the full benefit\nof the law is a danger and disadvantage to every State, however highly\norganised its constitution may otherwise be. But the actual existence of\na religious party differing in faith from the majority is dangerous only\nto a State very imperfectly organised. Disabilities are always a danger.\nMultiplicity of religions is only dangerous to States of an inferior\ntype. By persecution they rid themselves of the peculiar danger which\nthreatens them, without involving themselves in a system universally\nbad. Persecution comes naturally in a certain period of the progress of\nsociety, before a more flexible and comprehensive system has been\nintroduced by that advance of religion and civilisation whereby\nCatholicism gradually penetrates into hostile countries, and Christian\npowers acquire dominion over infidel populations. Thus it is the token\nof an epoch in the political, religious, and intellectual life of\nmankind, and it disappears with its epoch, and with the advance of the\nChurch militant in her Catholic vocation. Intolerance of dissent and\nimpatience of contradiction are a characteristic of youth. Those that\nhave no knowledge of the truth that underlies opposite opinions, and no\nexperience of their consequent force, cannot believe that men are\nsincere in holding them. At a certain point of mental growth, tolerance\nimplies indifference, and intolerance is inseparable from sincerity.\nThus intolerance, in itself a defect, becomes in this case a merit.\nAgain, although the political conditions of intolerance belong to the\nyouth and immaturity of nations, the motives of intolerance may at any\ntime be just and the principle high. For the theory of religious unity\nis founded on the most elevated and truest view of the character and\nfunction of the State, on the perception that its ultimate purpose is\nnot distinct from that of the Church. In the pagan State they were\nidentified; in the Christian world the end remains the same, but the\nmeans are different.\n\nThe State aims at the things of another life but indirectly. Its course\nruns parallel to that of the Church; they do not converge. The direct\nsubservience of the State to religious ends would imply despotism and\npersecution just as much as the pagan supremacy of civil over religious\nauthority. The similarity of the end demands harmony in the principles,\nand creates a decided antagonism between the State and a religious\ncommunity whose character is in total contradiction with it. With such\nreligions there is no possibility of reconciliation. A State must be at\nopen war with any system which it sees would prevent it from fulfilling\nits legitimate duties. The danger, therefore, lies not in the doctrine,\nbut in the practice. But to the pagan and to the mediaeval State, the\ndanger was in the doctrine. The Christians were the best subjects of the\nemperor, but Christianity was really subversive of the fundamental\ninstitutions of the Roman Empire. In the infancy of the modern States,\nthe civil power required all the help that religion could give in order\nto establish itself against the lawlessness of barbarism and feudal\ndissolution. The existence of the State at that time depended on the\npower of the Church. When, in the thirteenth century, the Empire\nrenounced this support, and made war on the Church, it fell at once into\na number of small sovereignties. In those cases persecution was\nself-defence. It was wrongly defended as an absolute, not as a\nconditional principle; but such a principle was false only as the modern\ntheory of religious liberty is false. One was a wrong generalisation\nfrom the true character of the State; the other is a true conclusion\nfrom a false notion of the State. To say that because of the union\nbetween Church and State it is right to persecute would condemn all\ntoleration; and to say that the objects of the State have nothing to do\nwith religion, would condemn all persecution. But persecution and\ntoleration are equally true in principle, considered politically; only\none belongs to a more highly developed civilisation than the other. At\none period toleration would destroy society; at another, persecution is\nfatal to liberty. The theory of intolerance is wrong only if founded\nabsolutely upon religious motives; but even then the practice of it is\nnot necessarily censurable. It is opposed to the Christian spirit, in\nthe same manner as slavery is opposed to it. The Church prohibits\nneither intolerance nor slavery, though in proportion as her influence\nextends, and civilisation advances, both gradually disappear.\n\nUnity and liberty are the only legitimate principles on which the\nposition of a Church in a State can be regulated, but the distance\nbetween them is immeasurable, and the transition extremely difficult. To\npass from religious unity to religious liberty is to effect a complete\ninversion in the character of the State, a change in the whole spirit of\nlegislation, and a still greater revolution in the minds and habits of\nmen. So great a change seldom happens all at once. The law naturally\nfollows the condition of society, which does not suddenly change. An\nintervening stage from unity to liberty, a compromise between toleration\nand persecution, is a common but irrational, tyrannical, and impolitic\narrangement. It is idle to talk of the guilt of persecution, if we do\nnot distinguish the various principles on which religious dissent can be\ntreated by the State. The exclusion of other religions--- the system of\nSpain, of Sweden, of Mecklenburg, Holstein, and Tyrol--is reasonable in\nprinciple, though practically untenable in the present state of European\nsociety. The system of expulsion or compulsory conformity, adopted by\nLewis XIV. and the Emperor Nicholas, is defensible neither on religious\nnor political grounds. But the system applied to Ireland, which uses\nreligious disabilities for the purpose of political oppression,[325]\nstands alone in solitary infamy among the crimes and follies of the\nrulers of men.\n\nThe acquisition of real definite freedom is a very slow and tardy\nprocess. The great social independence enjoyed in the early periods of\nnational history is not yet political freedom. The State has not yet\ndeveloped its authority, or assumed the functions of government. A\nperiod follows when all the action of society is absorbed by the ruling\npower, when the license of early times is gone, and the liberties of a\nriper age are not yet acquired. These liberties are the product of a\nlong conflict with absolutism, and of a gradual development, which, by\nestablishing definite rights revives in positive form the negative\nliberty of an unformed society. The object and the result of this\nprocess is the organisation of self-government, the substitution of\nright for force, of authority for power, of duty for necessity, and of a\nmoral for a physical relation between government and people. Until this\npoint is reached, religious liberty is an anomaly. In a State which\npossesses all power and all authority there is no room for the autonomy\nof religious communities. Those States, therefore, not only refuse\nliberty of conscience, but deprive the favoured Church of ecclesiastical\nfreedom. The principles of religious unity and liberty are so opposed\nthat no modern State has at once denied toleration and allowed freedom\nto its established Church. Both of these are unnatural in a State which\nrejects self-government, the only secure basis of all freedom, whether\nreligious or political. For religious freedom is based on political\nliberty; intolerance, therefore, is a political necessity against all\nreligions which threaten the unity of faith in a State that is not free,\nand in every State against those religions which threaten its existence.\nAbsolute intolerance belongs to the absolute State; special persecution\nmay be justified by special causes in any State. All mediaeval\npersecution is of the latter kind, for the sects against which it was\ndirected were revolutionary parties. The State really defended, not its\nreligious unity, but its political existence.\n\nIf the Catholic Church was naturally inclined to persecute, she would\npersecute in all cases alike, when there was no interest to serve but\nher own. Instead of adapting her conduct to circumstances, and accepting\ntheories according to the character of the time, she would have\ndeveloped a consistent theory out of her own system, and would have been\nmost severe when she was most free from external influences, from\npolitical objects, or from temporary or national prejudices. She would\nhave imposed a common rule of conduct in different countries in\ndifferent ages, instead of submitting to the exigencies of each time and\nplace. Her own rule of conduct never changed. She treats it as a crime\nto abandon her, not to be outside her. An apostate who returns to her\nhas a penance for his apostasy; a heretic who is converted has no\npenance for his heresy. Severity against those who are outside her fold\nis against her principles. Persecution is contrary to the nature of a\nuniversal Church; it is peculiar to the national Churches.\n\nWhile the Catholic Church by her progress in freedom naturally tends to\npush the development of States beyond the sphere where they are still\nobliged to preserve the unity of religion, and whilst she extends over\nStates in all degrees of advancement, Protestantism, which belongs to a\nparticular age and state of society, which makes no claim to\nuniversality, and which is dependent on political connection, regards\npersecution, not as an accident, but as a duty.\n\nWherever Protestantism prevailed, intolerance became a principle of\nState, and was proclaimed in theory even where the Protestants were in a\nminority, and where the theory supplied a weapon against themselves. The\nReformation made it a general law, not only against Catholics by way of\nself-defence or retaliation, but against all who dissented from the\nreformed doctrines, whom it treated, not as enemies, but as\ncriminals,--against the Protestant sects, against Socinians, and against\natheists. It was not a right, but a duty; its object was to avenge God,\nnot to preserve order. There is no analogy between the persecution which\npreserves and the persecution which attacks; or between intolerance as a\nreligious duty, and intolerance as a necessity of State. The Reformers\nunanimously declared persecution to be incumbent on the civil power; and\nthe Protestant Governments universally acted upon their injunctions,\nuntil scepticism escaped the infliction of penal laws and condemned\ntheir spirit.\n\nDoubtless, in the interest of their religion, they acted wisely. Freedom\nis not more decidedly the natural condition of Catholicism than\nintolerance is of Protestantism; which by the help of persecution\nsucceeded in establishing itself in countries where it had no root in\nthe affections of the people, and in preserving itself from the internal\ndivisions which follow free inquiry. Toleration has been at once a cause\nand an effect of its decline. The Catholic Church, on the other hand,\nsupported the mediaeval State by religious unity, and has saved herself\nin the modern State by religious freedom. No longer compelled to devise\ntheories in justification of a system imposed on her by the exigencies\nof half-organised societies, she is enabled to revert to a policy more\nsuited to her nature and to her most venerable traditions; and the\nprinciple of liberty has already restored to her much of that which the\nprinciple of unity took away. It was not, as our author imagines (p.\n119), by the protection of Lewis XIV. that she was formidable; nor is it\ntrue that in consequence of the loss of temporalities, \"the chill of\ndeath is gathering round the heart of the great theocracy\" (p. 94); nor\nthat \"the visible decline of the papacy\" is at hand because it no longer\nwields \"the more efficacious arms of the great Catholic monarchies\" (p.\n190).\n\nThe same appeal to force, the same principles of intolerance which\nexpelled Catholicism from Protestant countries, gave rise in Catholic\ncountries to the growth of infidelity. The Revolutions of 1789 in\nFrance, and of 1859 in Italy, attest the danger of a practice which\nrequires for its support the doctrines of another religion, or the\ncircumstances of a different age. Not till the Church had lost those\nprops in which Mr. Goldwin Smith sees the secret of her power, did she\nrecover her elasticity and her expansive vigour. Catholics may have\nlearnt this truth late, but Protestants, it appears, have yet to learn\nit.\n\nIn one point Mr. Goldwin Smith is not so very far from the views of the\nOrange party. He thinks, indeed, that the Church is no longer dangerous,\nand would not therefore have Catholics maltreated; but this is due, not\nto her merits, but to her weakness.\n\n   Popes might now be as willing as ever, if they had the power, to step\n   between a Protestant State and the allegiance of its subjects (p.\n   190).\n\nMr. Smith seems to think that the Popes claim the same authority over\nthe rulers of a Protestant State that they formerly possessed over the\nprinces of Catholic countries. Yet this political power of the Holy See\nwas never a universal right of jurisdiction over States, but a special\nand positive right, which it is as absurd to censure as to fear or to\nregret at the present time. Directly, it extended only over territories\nwhich were held by feudal tenure of the Pope, like the Sicilian\nmonarchy. Elsewhere the authority was indirect, not political but\nreligious, and its political consequences were due to the laws of the\nland. The Catholic countries would no more submit to a king not of their\ncommunion than Protestant countries, England for instance, or Denmark.\nThis is as natural and inevitable in a country where the whole\npopulation is of one religion, as it is artificial and unjust in a\ncountry where no sort of religious unity prevails, and where such a law\nmight compel the sovereign to be of the religion of the minority.\n\nAt any rate, nobody who thinks it reasonable that any prince abandoning\nthe Established Church should forfeit the English throne, can complain\nof a law which compelled the sovereign to be of the religion, not of a\nmajority, but of the whole of his subjects. The idea of the Pope\nstepping between a State and the allegiance of its subjects is a mere\nmisapprehension. The instrument of his authority is the law, and the law\nresides in the State. The Pope could intervene, therefore, only between\nthe State and the occupant of the throne; and his intervention\nsuspended, not the duty of obeying, but the right of governing. The line\non which his sentence ran separated, not the subjects from the State,\nbut the sovereign from the other authorities. It was addressed to the\nnation politically organised against the head of the organism, not to\nthe mass of individual subjects against the constituted authorities.\nThat such a power was inconsistent with the modern notion of sovereignty\nis true; but it is also true that this notion is as much at variance\nwith the nature of ecclesiastical authority as with civil liberty. The\nRoman maxim, _princeps legibus solutus_, could not be admitted by the\nChurch; and an absolute prince could not properly be invested in her\neyes with the sanctity of authority, or protected by the duty of\nsubmission. A moral, and _a fortiori_ a spiritual, authority moves and\nlives only in an atmosphere of freedom.\n\nThere are, however, two things to be considered in explanation of the\nerror into which our author and so many others have fallen. Law follows\nlife, but not with an equal pace. There is a time when it ceases to\ncorrespond to the existing order of things, and meets an invincible\nobstacle in a new society. The exercise of the mediaeval authority of the\nPopes was founded on the religious unity of the State, and had no basis\nin a divided community. It was not easy in the period of transition to\ntell when the change took place, and at what moment the old power lost\nits efficacy; no one could foresee its failure, and it still remained\nthe legal and recognised means of preventing the change. Accordingly, it\nwas twice tried during the wars of religion, in France with success, in\nEngland with disastrous effects. It is a universal rule that a right is\nnot given up until the necessity of its surrender is proved. But the\nreal difficulty arises, not from the mode in which the power was\nexercised, but from the way in which it was defended. The mediaeval\nwriters were accustomed to generalise; they disregarded particular\ncircumstances, and they were generally ignorant of the habits and ideas\nof their age. Living in the cloister, and writing for the school, they\nwere unacquainted with the polity and institutions around them, and\nsought their authorities and examples in antiquity, in the speculations\nof Aristotle, and the maxims of the civil law. They gave to their\npolitical doctrines as abstract a form, and attributed to them as\nuniversal an application, as the modern absolutists or the more recent\nliberals. So regardless were they of the difference between ancient\ntimes and their own, that the Jewish chronicles, the Grecian\nlegislators, and the Roman code supplied them indifferently with rules\nand instances; they could not imagine that a new state of things would\none day arise in which their theories would be completely obsolete.\nTheir definitions of right and law are absolute in the extreme, and seem\noften to admit of no qualification. Hence their character is essentially\nrevolutionary, and they contradict both the authority of law and the\nsecurity of freedom. It is on this contradiction that the common notion\nof the danger of ecclesiastical pretensions is founded. But the men who\ntake alarm at the tone of the mediaeval claims judge them with a theory\njust as absolute and as excessive. No man can fairly denounce imaginary\npretensions in the Church of the nineteenth century, who does not\nunderstand that rights which are now impossible may have been\nreasonable and legitimate in the days when they were actually exercised.\n\nThe zeal with which Mr. Goldwin Smith condemns the Irish establishment\nand the policy of the ascendency is all the more meritorious because he\nhas no conception of the amount of iniquity involved in them.\n\n   The State Church of Ireland, however anomalous and even scandalous\n   its position may be as the Church of a dominant minority upheld by\n   force in the midst of a hostile people, does not, in truth, rest on a\n   principle different from that of other State Churches. To justify the\n   existence of any State Church, it must be assumed as an axiom that\n   the State is the judge of religious truth; and that it is bound to\n   impose upon its subjects, or at least to require them as a community\n   to maintain, the religion which it judges to be true (p. 91).\n\nNo such analogy in reality subsists as is here assumed. There is a great\ndifference between the Irish and the English establishment; but even the\nlatter has no similarity of principle with the Catholic establishments\nof the continent.\n\nThe fundamental distinction is, that in one case the religion of the\npeople is adopted by the State, whilst in the other the State imposes a\nreligion on the people. For the political justification of Catholic\nestablishments, no more is required than the theory that it is just that\nthe religion of a country should be represented in, and protected by,\nits government. This is evidently and universally true; for the moral\nbasis which human laws require can only be derived from an influence\nwhich was originally religious as well as moral. The unity of moral\nconsciousness must be founded on a precedent unity of spiritual belief.\nAccording to this theory, the character of the nation determines the\nforms of the State. Consequently it is a theory consistent with freedom.\nBut Protestant establishments, according to our author's definition,\nwhich applies to them, and to them alone, rest on the opposite theory,\nthat the will of the State is independent of the condition of the\ncommunity; and that it may, or indeed must, impose on the nation a faith\nwhich may be that of a minority, and which in some cases has been that\nof the sovereign alone. According to the Catholic view, government may\npreserve in its laws, and by its authority, the religion of the\ncommunity; according to the Protestant view it may be bound to change\nit. A government which has power to change the faith of its subjects\nmust be absolute in other things; so that one theory is as favourable to\ntyranny as the other is opposed to it. The safeguard of the Catholic\nsystem of Church and State, as contrasted with the Protestant, was that\nvery authority which the Holy See used to prevent the sovereign from\nchanging the religion of the people, by deposing him if he departed from\nit himself. In most Catholic countries the Church preceded the State;\nsome she assisted to form; all she contributed to sustain. Throughout\nWestern Europe Catholicism was the religion of the inhabitants before\nthe new monarchies were founded. The invaders, who became the dominant\nrace and the architects of a new system of States, were sooner or later\ncompelled, in order to preserve their dominion, to abandon their pagan\nor their Arian religion, and to adopt the common faith of the immense\nmajority of the people. The connection between Church and State was\ntherefore a natural, not an arbitrary, institution; the result of the\nsubmission of the Government to popular influence, and the means by\nwhich that influence was perpetuated. No Catholic Government ever\nimposed a Catholic establishment on a Protestant community, or destroyed\na Protestant establishment. Even the revocation of the Edict of Nantes,\nthe greatest wrong ever inflicted on the Protestant subjects of a\nCatholic State, will bear no comparison with the establishment of the\nreligion of a minority. It is a far greater wrong than the most severe\npersecution, because persecution may be necessary for the preservation\nof an existing society, as in the case of the early Christians and of\nthe Albigenses; but a State Church can only be justified by the\nacquiescence of the nation. In every other case it is a great social\ndanger, and is inseparable from political oppression.\n\nMr. Goldwin Smith's vision is bounded by the Protestant horizon. The\nIrish establishment has one great mark in common with the other\nProtestant establishments,--that it is the creature of the State, and an\ninstrument of political influence. They were all imposed on the nation\nby the State power, sometimes against the will of the people, sometimes\nagainst that of the Crown. By the help of military power and of penal\nlaws, the State strove to provide that the Established Church should not\nbe the religion of the minority. But in Ireland the establishment was\nintroduced too late--when Protestantism had spent its expansive force,\nand the attraction of its doctrine no longer aided the efforts of the\ncivil power. Its position was false from the beginning, and obliged it\nto resort to persecution and official proselytism in order to put an end\nto the anomaly. Whilst, therefore, in all cases, Protestantism became\nthe Established Church by an exercise of authority tyrannical in itself,\nand possible only from the absolutism of the ruling power, in Ireland\nthe tyranny of its institution was perpetuated in the system by which it\nwas upheld, and in the violence with which it was introduced; and this\ntyranny continues through all its existence. It is the religion of the\nminority, the church of an alien State, the cause of suffering and of\ndisturbance, an instrument, a creature, and a monument of conquest and\nof tyranny. It has nothing in common with Catholic establishments, and\nnone of those qualities which, in the Anglican Church, redeem in part\nthe guilt of its origin. This is not, however, the only point on which\nour author has mistaken the peculiar and enormous character of the evils\nof Ireland.\n\nWith the injustice which generally attends his historical parallels, he\ncompares the policy of the Orange faction to that of the Jacobins in\nFrance.\n\n   The ferocity of the Jacobins was in a slight degree redeemed by their\n   fanaticism. Their objects were not entirely selfish. They murdered\n   aristocrats, not only because they hated and feared them, but because\n   they wildly imagined them to stand in the way of the social and\n   political millennium, which, according to Rousseau, awaited the\n   acceptance of mankind (p. 175).\n\nNo comparison can be more unfair than one which places the pitiless\nfanaticism of an idea in the same line with the cruelty inspired by a\nselfish interest. The Reign of Terror is one of the most portentous\nevents in history, because it was the consistent result of the simplest\nand most acceptable principle of the Revolution; it saved France from\nthe coalition, and it was the greatest attempt ever made to mould the\nform of a society by force into harmony with a speculative form of\nGovernment. An explanation which treats self-interest as its primary\nmotive, and judges other elements as merely qualifying it, is\nludicrously inadequate.\n\nThe Terrorism of Robespierre was produced by the theory of equality,\nwhich was not a mere passion, but a political doctrine, and at the same\ntime a national necessity. Political philosophers who, since the time of\nHobbes, derive the State from a social compact, necessarily assume that\nthe contracting parties were equal among themselves. By nature,\ntherefore, all men possess equal rights, and a right to equality. The\nintroduction of the civil power and of private property brought\ninequality into the world. This is opposed to the condition and to the\nrights of the natural state. The writers of the eighteenth century\nattributed to this circumstance the evils and sufferings of society. In\nFrance, the ruin of the public finances and the misery of the lower\norders were both laid at the door of the classes whose property was\nexempt from taxation. The endeavours of successive ministers--of Turgot,\nNecker, and Calonne--to break down the privileges of the aristocracy and\nof the clergy were defeated by the resistance of the old society. The\nGovernment attempted to save itself by obtaining concessions from the\nNotables, but without success, and then the great reform which the State\nwas impotent to carry into execution was effected by the people. The\ndestruction of the aristocratic society, which the absolute monarchy had\nfailed to reform, was the object and the triumph of the Revolution; and\nthe Constitution of 1791 declared all men equal, and withdrew the\nsanction of the law from every privilege.\n\nThis system gave only an equality in civil rights, a political equality\nsuch as already subsisted in America; but it did not provide against the\nexistence or the growth of those social inequalities by which the\ndistribution of political power might be affected. But the theory of the\nnatural equality of mankind understands equal rights as rights to equal\nthings in the State, and requires not only an abstract equality of\nrights, but a positive equality of power. The varieties of condition\ncaused by civilisation were so objectionable in the eyes of this school,\nthat Rousseau wrote earnest vindications of natural society, and\ncondemned the whole social fabric of Europe as artificial, unnatural,\nand monstrous. His followers laboured to destroy the work of history and\nthe influence of the past, and to institute a natural, reasonable order\nof things which should dispose all men on an equal level, which no\ndisparity of wealth or education should be permitted to disturb. There\nwere, therefore, two opinions in the revolutionary party. Those who\noverthrew the monarchy, established the republic, and commenced the war,\nwere content with having secured political and legal equality, and\nwished to leave the nation in the enjoyment of those advantages which\nfortune distributes unequally. But the consistent partisans of equality\nrequired that nothing should be allowed to raise one man above another.\nThe Girondists wished to preserve liberty, education, and property; but\nthe Jacobins, who held that an absolute equality should be maintained by\nthe despotism of the government over the people, interpreted more justly\nthe democratic principles which were common to both parties; and,\nfortunately for their country, they triumphed over their illogical and\nirresolute adversaries. \"When the revolutionary movement was once\nestablished,\" says De Maistre, \"nothing but Jacobinism could save\nFrance.\"\n\nThree weeks after the fall of the Gironde, the Constitution of 1793, by\nwhich a purely ideal democracy was instituted, was presented to the\nFrench people. Its adoption exactly coincides with the supremacy of\nRobespierre in the Committee of Public Safety, and with the inauguration\nof the Reign of Terror. The danger of invasion made the new tyranny\npossible, but the political doctrine of the Jacobins made it necessary.\nRobespierre explains the system in his report on the principles of\npolitical morality, presented to the Convention at the moment of his\ngreatest power:--\n\n   If the principle of a popular government in time of peace is virtue,\n   its principle during revolution is virtue and terror combined:\n   virtue, without which terror is pernicious; terror, without which\n   virtue is powerless. Terror is nothing but rapid, severe, inflexible\n   justice; therefore a product of virtue. It is not so much a principle\n   in itself, as a consequence of the universal principle of democracy\n   in its application to the urgent necessities of the country.\n\nThis is perfectly true. Envy, revenge, fear, were motives by which\nindividuals were induced or enabled to take part in the administration\nof such a system; but its introduction was not the work of passion, but\nthe inevitable result of a doctrine. The democratic Constitution\nrequired to be upheld by violence, not only against foreign arms, but\nagainst the state of society and the nature of things. The army could\nnot be made its instrument, because the rulers were civilians, and\nfeared, beyond all things, the influence of military officers in the\nState. Officers were frequently arrested and condemned as traitors,\ncompelled to seek safety in treason, watched and controlled by members\nof the Convention. In the absence of a military despotism, the\nrevolutionary tribunal was the only resource.\n\nThe same theory of an original state of nature, from which the principle\nof equality was deduced, also taught men where they might find the\nstandard of equality; as civilisation, by means of civil power,\neducation, and wealth, was the source of corruption, the purity of\nvirtue was to be found in the classes which had been least exposed to\nthose disturbing causes. Those who were least tainted by the temptations\nof civilised society remained in the natural state. This was the\ndefinition of the new notion of the people, which became the measure of\nvirtue and of equality. The democratic theory required that the whole\nnation should be reduced to the level of the lower orders in all those\nthings in which society creates disparity, in order to be raised to the\nlevel of that republican virtue which resides among those who have\nretained a primitive simplicity by escaping the influence of\ncivilisation.\n\nThe form of government and the condition of society must always\ncorrespond. Social equality is therefore a postulate of pure democracy.\nIt was necessary that it should exist if the Constitution was to stand,\nand if the great ideal of popular enthusiasm was ever to be realised.\nThe Revolution had begun by altering the social condition of the\ncountry; the correction of society by the State had already commenced.\nIt did not, therefore, seem impossible to continue it until the nation\nshould be completely remodelled in conformity with the new principles.\nThe system before which the ancient monarchy had fallen, which was so\nfruitful of marvels, which was victorious over a more formidable\ncoalition than that which had humbled Lewis XIV., was deemed equal to\nthe task of completing the social changes which had been so extensively\nbegun, and of moulding France according to the new and simple pattern.\nThe equality which was essential to the existence of the new form of\ngovernment did not in fact exist. Privilege was abolished, but influence\nremained. All the inequality founded on wealth, education, ability,\nreputation, even on the virtues of a code different from that of\nrepublican morality, presented obstacles to the establishment of the new\n_regime_, and those who were thus distinguished were necessarily enemies\nof the State. With perfect reason, all that rose above the common level,\nor did not conform to the universal rule, was deemed treasonable. The\ndifference between the actual society and the ideal equality was so\ngreat that it could be removed only by violence. The great mass of those\nwho perished were really, either by attachment or by their condition, in\nantagonism with the State. They were condemned, not for particular\nacts, but for their position, or for acts which denoted, not so much a\nhostile design, as an incompatible habit. By the _loi des suspects_,\nwhich was provoked by this conflict between the form of government and\nthe real state of the country, whole classes, rather than ill-disposed\nindividuals, were declared objects of alarm. Hence the proscription was\nwholesale. Criminals were judged and executed in categories; and the\nmerits of individual cases were, therefore, of little account. For this\nreason, leading men of ability, bitterly hostile to the new system, were\nsaved by Danton; for it was often indifferent who were the victims,\nprovided the group to which they belonged was struck down. The question\nwas not, what crimes has the prisoner committed? but, does he belong to\none of those classes whose existence the Republic cannot tolerate? From\nthis point of view, there were not so many unjust judgments pronounced,\nat least in Paris, as is generally believed. It was necessary to be\nprodigal of blood, or to abandon the theory of liberty and equality,\nwhich had commanded, for a whole generation, the enthusiastic devotion\nof educated men, and for the truth of which thousands of its believers\nwere ready to die. The truth of that doctrine was tested by a terrible\nalternative; but the fault lay with those who believed it, not\nexclusively with those who practised it. There were few who could\nadminister such a system without any other motive but devotion to the\nidea, or who could retain the coolness and indifference of which St.\nJust is an extraordinary example. Most of the Terrorists were swayed by\nfear for themselves, or by the frenzy which is produced by familiarity\nwith slaughter. But this is of small account. The significance of that\nsanguinary drama lies in the fact, that a political abstraction was\npowerful enough to make men think themselves right in destroying masses\nof their countrymen in the attempt to impose it on their country. The\nhorror of that system and its failure have given vitality to the\ncommunistic theory. It was unreasonable to attack the effect instead of\nthe cause, and cruel to destroy the proprietor, while the danger lay in\nthe property. For private property necessarily produces that inequality\nwhich the Jacobin theory condemned; and the Constitution of 1793 could\nnot be maintained by Terrorism without Communism, by proscribing the\nrich while riches were tolerated. The Jacobins were guilty of\ninconsistency in omitting to attack inequality in its source. Yet no man\nwho admits their theory has a right to complain of their acts. The one\nproceeded from the other with the inflexible logic of history. The Reign\nof Terror was nothing else than the reign of those who conceive that\nliberty and equality can coexist.\n\nOne more quotation will sufficiently justify what we have said of the\nsincerity and ignorance which Mr. Goldwin Smith shows in his remarks on\nCatholic subjects. After calling the Bull of Adrian IV. \"the\nstumbling-block and the despair of Catholic historians,\" he proceeded to\nsay:--\n\n   Are Catholics filled with perplexity at the sight of infallibility\n   sanctioning rapine? They can scarcely be less perplexed by the title\n   which infallibility puts forward to the dominion of Ireland.... But\n   this perplexity arises entirely from the assumption, which may be an\n   article of faith, but is not an article of history, that the\n   infallible morality of the Pope has never changed (pp. 46, 47).\n\nIt is hard to understand how a man of honour and ability can entertain\nsuch notions of the character of the Papacy as these words imply, or\nwhere he can have found authorities for so monstrous a caricature. We\nwill only say that infallibility is no attribute of the political system\nof the Popes, and that the Bulls of Adrian and Alexander are not\ninstances of infallible morality.\n\nGreat as the errors which we have pointed out undoubtedly are, the book\nitself is of real value, and encourages us to form sanguine hopes of the\nfuture services of its author to historical science, and ultimately to\nreligion. We are hardly just in complaining of Protestant writers who\nfail to do justice to the Church. There are not very many amongst\nourselves who take the trouble to ascertain her real character as a\nvisible institution, or to know how her nature has been shown in her\nhistory. We know the doctrine which she teaches; we are familiar with\nthe outlines of her discipline. We know that sanctity is one of her\nmarks, and that beneficence has characterised her influence. In a\ngeneral way we are confident that historical accusations are as false as\ndogmatic attacks, and most of us have some notion of the way in which\nthe current imputations are to be met. But as to her principles of\naction in many important things, how they have varied in course of time,\nwhat changes have been effected by circumstances, and what rules have\nnever been broken,--few are at the pains to inquire. As adversaries\nimagine that in exposing a Catholic they strike Catholicism, and that\nthe defects of the men are imperfections in the institution and a proof\nthat it is not divine, so we grow accustomed to confound in our defence\nthat which is defective and that which is indefectible, and to discover\nin the Church merits as self-contradictory as are the accusations of her\ndifferent foes. At one moment we are told that Catholicism teaches\ncontempt, and therefore neglect of wealth; at another, that it is false\nto say that the Church does not promote temporal prosperity. If a great\npoint is made against persecution, it will be denied that she is\nintolerant, whilst at another time it will be argued that heresy and\nunbelief deserve to be punished.\n\nWe cannot be surprised that Protestants do not know the Church better\nthan we do ourselves, or that, while we allow no evil to be spoken of\nher human elements, those who deem her altogether human should discover\nin her the defects of human institutions. It is intensely difficult to\nenter into the spirit of a system not our own. Particular principles and\ndoctrines are easily mastered; but a system answering all the spiritual\ncravings, all the intellectual capabilities of man, demands more than a\nmere mental effort,--a submission of the intellect, an act of faith, a\ntemporary suspension of the critical faculty. This applies not merely\nto the Christian religion, with its unfathomable mysteries and its\ninexhaustible fund of truth, but to the fruits of human speculation.\nNobody has ever succeeded in writing a history of philosophy without\nincurring either the reproach that he is a mere historian, incapable of\nentering into the genius of any system, or a mere metaphysician, who can\ndiscern in all other philosophies only the relation they bear to his\nown. In religion the difficulty is greater still, and greatest of all\nwith Catholicism. For the Church is to be seen, not in books, but in\nlife. No divine can put together the whole body of her doctrine; no\ncanonist the whole fabric of her law; no historian the infinite\nvicissitudes of her career. The Protestant who wishes to be informed on\nall these things can be advised to rely on no one manual, on no\nencyclopaedia of her deeds and of her ideas; if he seeks to know what\nthese have been, he must be told to look around. And to one who surveys\nher teaching and her fortunes through all ages and all lands, ignorant\nor careless of that which is essential, changeless, and immortal in her,\nit will not be easy to discern through so much outward change a regular\ndevelopment, amid such variety of forms the unchanging substance, in so\nmany modifications fidelity to constant laws; or to recognise, in a\ncareer so chequered with failure, disaster, and suffering, with the\napostasy of heroes, the weakness of rulers, and the errors of doctors,\nthe unfailing hand of a heavenly Guide.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 322: _The Rambler_, March 1862.]\n\n[Footnote 323: _Works_, ii. 47. This is one of the passages which,\nseventy years ago, were declared to be treasonable. We trust we run no\nrisk in confessing that we entirely agree with it.]\n\n[Footnote 324: Tocqueville, _L'Ancien Regime et la Revolution_, Preface,\np. xvi.]\n\n[Footnote 325: \"From what I have observed, it is pride, arrogance, and a\nspirit of domination, and not a bigoted spirit of religion, that has\ncaused and kept up those oppressive statutes. I am sure I have known\nthose who have oppressed Papists in their civil rights exceedingly\nindulgent to them in their religious ceremonies, and who really wished\nthem to continue Catholics, in order to furnish pretences for\noppression. These persons never saw a man (by converting) escape out of\ntheir power but with grudging and regret\" (Burke. \"On the Penal Laws\nagainst Irish Catholics,\" _Works_, iv. 505).\n\n\"I vow to God, I would sooner bring myself to put a man to immediate\ndeath for opinions I disliked, and so to get rid of the man and his\nopinions at once, than to fret him into a feverish being tainted with\nthe jail-distemper of a contagious servitude, to keep him above ground,\nan animated mass of putrefaction, corrupted himself, and corrupting all\nabout him\" (Speech at Bristol, _ibid._ iii. 427).]\n\n\n\n\nIX\n\nNATIONALITY[326]\n\n\nWhenever great intellectual cultivation has been combined with that\nsuffering which is inseparable from extensive changes in the condition\nof the people, men of speculative or imaginative genius have sought in\nthe contemplation of an ideal society a remedy, or at least a\nconsolation, for evils which they were practically unable to remove.\nPoetry has always preserved the idea, that at some distant time or\nplace, in the Western islands or the Arcadian region, an innocent and\ncontented people, free from the corruption and restraint of civilised\nlife, have realised the legends of the golden age. The office of the\npoets is always nearly the same, and there is little variation in the\nfeatures of their ideal world; but when philosophers attempt to admonish\nor reform mankind by devising an imaginary state, their motive is more\ndefinite and immediate, and their commonwealth is a satire as well as a\nmodel. Plato and Plotinus, More and Campanella, constructed their\nfanciful societies with those materials which were omitted from the\nfabric of the actual communities, by the defects of which they were\ninspired. The Republic, the Utopia, and the City of the Sun were\nprotests against a state of things which the experience of their authors\ntaught them to condemn, and from the faults of which they took refuge in\nthe opposite extremes. They remained without influence, and have never\npassed from literary into political history, because something more than\ndiscontent and speculative ingenuity is needed in order to invest a\npolitical idea with power over the masses of mankind. The scheme of a\nphilosopher can command the practical allegiance of fanatics only, not\nof nations; and though oppression may give rise to violent and repeated\noutbreaks, like the convulsions of a man in pain, it cannot mature a\nsettled purpose and plan of regeneration, unless a new notion of\nhappiness is joined to the sense of present evil.\n\nThe history of religion furnishes a complete illustration. Between the\nlater mediaeval sects and Protestantism there is an essential difference,\nthat outweighs the points of analogy found in those systems which are\nregarded as heralds of the Reformation, and is enough to explain the\nvitality of the last in comparison with the others. Whilst Wycliffe and\nHus contradicted certain particulars of the Catholic teaching, Luther\nrejected the authority of the Church, and gave to the individual\nconscience an independence which was sure to lead to an incessant\nresistance. There is a similar difference between the Revolt of the\nNetherlands, the Great Rebellion, the War of Independence, or the rising\nof Brabant, on the one hand, and the French Revolution on the other.\nBefore 1789, insurrections were provoked by particular wrongs, and were\njustified by definite complaints and by an appeal to principles which\nall men acknowledged. New theories were sometimes advanced in the cause\nof controversy, but they were accidental, and the great argument against\ntyranny was fidelity to the ancient laws. Since the change produced by\nthe French Revolution, those aspirations which are awakened by the evils\nand defects of the social state have come to act as permanent and\nenergetic forces throughout the civilised world. They are spontaneous\nand aggressive, needing no prophet to proclaim, no champion to defend\nthem, but popular, unreasoning, and almost irresistible. The Revolution\neffected this change, partly by its doctrines, partly by the indirect\ninfluence of events. It taught the people to regard their wishes and\nwants as the supreme criterion of right. The rapid vicissitudes of\npower, in which each party successively appealed to the favour of the\nmasses as the arbiter of success, accustomed the masses to be arbitrary\nas well as insubordinate. The fall of many governments, and the frequent\nredistribution of territory, deprived all settlements of the dignity of\npermanence. Tradition and prescription ceased to be guardians of\nauthority; and the arrangements which proceeded from revolutions, from\nthe triumphs of war, and from treaties of peace, were equally regardless\nof established rights. Duty cannot be dissociated from right, and\nnations refuse to be controlled by laws which are no protection.\n\nIn this condition of the world, theory and action follow close upon each\nother, and practical evils easily give birth to opposite systems. In the\nrealms of free-will, the regularity of natural progress is preserved by\nthe conflict of extremes. The impulse of the reaction carries men from\none extremity towards another. The pursuit of a remote and ideal object,\nwhich captivates the imagination by its splendour and the reason by its\nsimplicity, evokes an energy which would not be inspired by a rational,\npossible end, limited by many antagonistic claims, and confined to what\nis reasonable, practicable, and just. One excess or exaggeration is the\ncorrective of the other, and error promotes truth, where the masses are\nconcerned, by counterbalancing a contrary error. The few have not\nstrength to achieve great changes unaided; the many have not wisdom to\nbe moved by truth unmixed. Where the disease is various, no particular\ndefinite remedy can meet the wants of all. Only the attraction of an\nabstract idea, or of an ideal state, can unite in a common action\nmultitudes who seek a universal cure for many special evils, and a\ncommon restorative applicable to many different conditions. And hence\nfalse principles, which correspond with the bad as well as with the just\naspirations of mankind, are a normal and necessary element in the social\nlife of nations.\n\nTheories of this kind are just, inasmuch as they are provoked by\ndefinite ascertained evils, and undertake their removal. They are useful\nin opposition, as a warning or a threat, to modify existing things, and\nkeep awake the consciousness of wrong. They cannot serve as a basis for\nthe reconstruction of civil society, as medicine cannot serve for food;\nbut they may influence it with advantage, because they point out the\ndirection, though not the measure, in which reform is needed. They\noppose an order of things which is the result of a selfish and violent\nabuse of power by the ruling classes, and of artificial restriction on\nthe natural progress of the world, destitute of an ideal element or a\nmoral purpose. Practical extremes differ from the theoretical extremes\nthey provoke, because the first are both arbitrary and violent, whilst\nthe last, though also revolutionary, are at the same time remedial. In\none case the wrong is voluntary, in the other it is inevitable. This is\nthe general character of the contest between the existing order and the\nsubversive theories that deny its legitimacy. There are three principal\ntheories of this kind, impugning the present distribution of power, of\nproperty, and of territory, and attacking respectively the aristocracy,\nthe middle class, and the sovereignty. They are the theories of\nequality, communism, and nationality. Though sprung from a common\norigin, opposing cognate evils, and connected by many links, they did\nnot appear simultaneously. Rousseau proclaimed the first, Baboeuf the\nsecond, Mazzini the third; and the third is the most recent in its\nappearance, the most attractive at the present time, and the richest in\npromise of future power.\n\nIn the old European system, the rights of nationalities were neither\nrecognised by governments nor asserted by the people. The interest of\nthe reigning families, not those of the nations, regulated the\nfrontiers; and the administration was conducted generally without any\nreference to popular desires. Where all liberties were suppressed, the\nclaims of national independence were necessarily ignored, and a\nprincess, in the words of Fenelon, carried a monarchy in her wedding\nportion. The eighteenth century acquiesced in this oblivion of corporate\nrights on the Continent, for the absolutists cared only for the State,\nand the liberals only for the individual. The Church, the nobles, and\nthe nation had no place in the popular theories of the age; and they\ndevised none in their own defence, for they were not openly attacked.\nThe aristocracy retained its privileges, and the Church her property;\nand the dynastic interest, which overruled the natural inclination of\nthe nations and destroyed their independence, nevertheless maintained\ntheir integrity. The national sentiment was not wounded in its most\nsensitive part. To dispossess a sovereign of his hereditary crown, and\nto annex his dominions, would have been held to inflict an injury upon\nall monarchies, and to furnish their subjects with a dangerous example,\nby depriving royalty of its inviolable character. In time of war, as\nthere was no national cause at stake, there was no attempt to rouse\nnational feeling. The courtesy of the rulers towards each other was\nproportionate to the contempt for the lower orders. Compliments passed\nbetween the commanders of hostile armies; there was no bitterness, and\nno excitement; battles were fought with the pomp and pride of a parade.\nThe art of war became a slow and learned game. The monarchies were\nunited not only by a natural community of interests, but by family\nalliances. A marriage contract sometimes became the signal for an\ninterminable war, whilst family connections often set a barrier to\nambition. After the wars of religion came to an end in 1648, the only\nwars were those which were waged for an inheritance or a dependency, or\nagainst countries whose system of government exempted them from the\ncommon law of dynastic States, and made them not only unprotected but\nobnoxious. These countries were England and Holland, until Holland\nceased to be a republic, and until, in England, the defeat of the\nJacobites in the forty-five terminated the struggle for the Crown. There\nwas one country, however, which still continued to be an exception; one\nmonarch whose place was not admitted in the comity of kings.\n\nPoland did not possess those securities for stability which were\nsupplied by dynastic connections and the theory of legitimacy, wherever\na crown could be obtained by marriage or inheritance. A monarch without\nroyal blood, a crown bestowed by the nation, were an anomaly and an\noutrage in that age of dynastic absolutism. The country was excluded\nfrom the European system by the nature of its institutions. It excited a\ncupidity which could not be satisfied. It gave the reigning families of\nEurope no hope of permanently strengthening themselves by intermarriage\nwith its rulers, or of obtaining it by bequest or by inheritance. The\nHabsburgs had contested the possession of Spain and the Indies with the\nFrench Bourbons, of Italy with the Spanish Bourbons, of the empire with\nthe house of Wittelsbach, of Silesia with the house of Hohenzollern.\nThere had been wars between rival houses for half the territories of\nItaly and Germany. But none could hope to redeem their losses or\nincrease their power in a country to which marriage and descent gave no\nclaim. Where they could not permanently inherit they endeavoured, by\nintrigues, to prevail at each election, and after contending in support\nof candidates who were their partisans, the neighbours at last appointed\nan instrument for the final demolition of the Polish State. Till then no\nnation had been deprived of its political existence by the Christian\nPowers, and whatever disregard had been shown for national interests and\nsympathies, some care had been taken to conceal the wrong by a\nhypocritical perversion of law. But the partition of Poland was an act\nof wanton violence, committed in open defiance not only of popular\nfeeling but of public law. For the first time in modern history a great\nState was suppressed, and a whole nation divided among its enemies.\n\nThis famous measure, the most revolutionary act of the old absolutism,\nawakened the theory of nationality in Europe, converting a dormant right\ninto an aspiration, and a sentiment into a political claim. \"No wise or\nhonest man,\" wrote Edmund Burke, \"can approve of that partition, or can\ncontemplate it without prognosticating great mischief from it to all\ncountries at some future time.\"[327] Thenceforward there was a nation\ndemanding to be united in a State,--a soul, as it were, wandering in\nsearch of a body in which to begin life over again; and, for the first\ntime, a cry was heard that the arrangement of States was unjust--that\ntheir limits were unnatural, and that a whole people was deprived of its\nright to constitute an independent community. Before that claim could be\nefficiently asserted against the overwhelming power of its\nopponents,--before it gained energy, after the last partition, to\novercome the influence of long habits of submission, and of the contempt\nwhich previous disorders had brought upon Poland,--the ancient European\nsystem was in ruins, and a new world was rising in its place.\n\nThe old despotic policy which made the Poles its prey had two\nadversaries,--the spirit of English liberty, and the doctrines of that\nrevolution which destroyed the French monarchy with its own weapons; and\nthese two contradicted in contrary ways the theory that nations have no\ncollective rights. At the present day, the theory of nationality is not\nonly the most powerful auxiliary of revolution, but its actual substance\nin the movements of the last three years. This, however, is a recent\nalliance, unknown to the first French Revolution. The modern theory of\nnationality arose partly as a legitimate consequence, partly as a\nreaction against it. As the system which overlooked national division\nwas opposed by liberalism in two forms, the French and the English, so\nthe system which insists upon them proceeds from two distinct sources,\nand exhibits the character either of 1688 or of 1789. When the French\npeople abolished the authorities under which it lived, and became its\nown master, France was in danger of dissolution: for the common will is\ndifficult to ascertain, and does not readily agree. \"The laws,\" said\nVergniaud, in the debate on the sentence of the king, \"are obligatory\nonly as the presumptive will of the people, which retains the right of\napproving or condemning them. The instant it manifests its wish the work\nof the national representation, the law, must disappear.\" This doctrine\nresolved society into its natural elements, and threatened to break up\nthe country into as many republics as there were communes. For true\nrepublicanism is the principle of self-government in the whole and in\nall the parts. In an extensive country, it can prevail only by the union\nof several independent communities in a single confederacy, as in\nGreece, in Switzerland, in the Netherlands, and in America; so that a\nlarge republic not founded on the federal principle must result in the\ngovernment of a single city, like Rome and Paris, and, in a less degree,\nAthens, Berne, and Amsterdam; or, in other words, a great democracy must\neither sacrifice self-government to unity, or preserve it by federalism.\n\nThe France of history fell together with the French State, which was the\ngrowth of centuries. The old sovereignty was destroyed. The local\nauthorities were looked upon with aversion and alarm. The new central\nauthority needed to be established on a new principle of unity. The\nstate of nature, which was the ideal of society, was made the basis of\nthe nation; descent was put in the place of tradition, and the French\npeople was regarded as a physical product: an ethnological, not\nhistoric, unit. It was assumed that a unity existed separate from the\nrepresentation and the government, wholly independent of the past, and\ncapable at any moment of expressing or of changing its mind. In the\nwords of Sieyes, it was no longer France, but some unknown country to\nwhich the nation was transported. The central power possessed authority,\ninasmuch as it obeyed the whole, and no divergence was permitted from\nthe universal sentiment. This power, endowed with volition, was\npersonified in the Republic One and Indivisible. The title signified\nthat a part could not speak or act for the whole,--that there was a\npower supreme over the State, distinct from, and independent of, its\nmembers; and it expressed, for the first time in history, the notion of\nan abstract nationality. In this manner the idea of the sovereignty of\nthe people, uncontrolled by the past, gave birth to the idea of\nnationality independent of the political influence of history. It sprang\nfrom the rejection of the two authorities,--of the State and of the\npast. The kingdom of France was, geographically as well as politically,\nthe product of a long series of events, and the same influences which\nbuilt up the State formed the territory. The Revolution repudiated alike\nthe agencies to which France owed her boundaries and those to which she\nowed her government. Every effaceable trace and relic of national\nhistory was carefully wiped away,--the system of administration, the\nphysical divisions of the country, the classes of society, the\ncorporations, the weights and measures, the calendar. France was no\nlonger bounded by the limits she had received from the condemned\ninfluence of her history; she could recognise only those which were set\nby nature. The definition of the nation was borrowed from the material\nworld, and, in order to avoid a loss of territory, it became not only an\nabstraction but a fiction.\n\nThere was a principle of nationality in the ethnological character of\nthe movement, which is the source of the common observation that\nrevolution is more frequent in Catholic than in Protestant countries. It\nis, in fact, more frequent in the Latin than in the Teutonic world,\nbecause it depends partly on a national impulse, which is only awakened\nwhere there is an alien element, the vestige of a foreign dominion, to\nexpel. Western Europe has undergone two conquests--one by the Romans and\none by the Germans, and twice received laws from the invaders. Each time\nit rose again against the victorious race; and the two great reactions,\nwhile they differ according to the different characters of the two\nconquests, have the phenomenon of imperialism in common. The Roman\nrepublic laboured to crush the subjugated nations into a homogeneous and\nobedient mass; but the increase which the proconsular authority obtained\nin the process subverted the republican government, and the reaction of\nthe provinces against Rome assisted in establishing the empire The\nCaesarean system gave an unprecedented freedom to the dependencies, and\nraised them to a civil equality which put an end to the dominion of race\nover race and of class over class. The monarchy was hailed as a refuge\nfrom the pride and cupidity of the Roman people; and the love of\nequality, the hatred of nobility, and the tolerance of despotism\nimplanted by Rome became, at least in Gaul, the chief feature of the\nnational character. But among the nations whose vitality had been broken\ndown by the stern republic, not one retained the materials necessary to\nenjoy independence, or to develop a new history. The political faculty\nwhich organises states and finds society in a moral order was exhausted,\nand the Christian doctors looked in vain over the waste of ruins for a\npeople by whose aid the Church might survive the decay of Rome. A new\nelement of national life was brought to that declining world by the\nenemies who destroyed it. The flood of barbarians settled over it for a\nseason, and then subsided; and when the landmarks of civilisation\nappeared once more, it was found that the soil had been impregnated with\na fertilising and regenerating influence, and that the inundation had\nlaid the germs of future states and of a new society. The political\nsense and energy came with the new blood, and was exhibited in the power\nexercised by the younger race upon the old, and in the establishment of\na graduated freedom. Instead of universal equal rights, the actual\nenjoyment of which is necessarily contingent on, and commensurate with,\npower, the rights of the people were made dependent on a variety of\nconditions, the first of which was the distribution of property. Civil\nsociety became a classified organism instead of a formless combination\nof atoms, and the feudal system gradually arose.\n\nRoman Gaul had so thoroughly adopted the ideas of absolute authority and\nundistinguished equality during the five centuries between Caesar and\nClovis, that the people could never be reconciled to the new system.\nFeudalism remained a foreign importation, and the feudal aristocracy an\nalien race, and the common people of France sought protection against\nboth in the Roman jurisprudence and the power of the crown. The\ndevelopment of absolute monarchy by the help of democracy is the one\nconstant character of French history. The royal power, feudal at first,\nand limited by the immunities and the great vassals, became more\npopular as it grew more absolute; while the suppression of aristocracy,\nthe removal of the intermediate authorities, was so particularly the\nobject of the nation, that it was more energetically accomplished after\nthe fall of the throne. The monarchy which had been engaged from the\nthirteenth century in curbing the nobles, was at last thrust aside by\nthe democracy, because it was too dilatory in the work, and was unable\nto deny its own origin and effectually ruin the class from which it\nsprang. All those things which constitute the peculiar character of the\nFrench Revolution,--the demand for equality, the hatred of nobility and\nfeudalism, and of the Church which was connected with them, the constant\nreference to pagan examples, the suppression of monarchy, the new code\nof law, the breach with tradition, and the substitution of an ideal\nsystem for everything that had proceeded from the mixture and mutual\naction of the races,--all these exhibit the common type of a reaction\nagainst the effects of the Frankish invasion. The hatred of royalty was\nless than the hatred of aristocracy; privileges were more detested than\ntyranny; and the king perished because of the origin of his authority\nrather than because of its abuse. Monarchy unconnected with aristocracy\nbecame popular in France, even when most uncontrolled; whilst the\nattempt to reconstitute the throne, and to limit and fence it with its\npeers, broke down, because the old Teutonic elements on which it\nrelied--hereditary nobility, primogeniture, and privilege--were no\nlonger tolerated. The substance of the ideas of 1789 is not the\nlimitation of the sovereign power, but the abrogation of intermediate\npowers. These powers, and the classes which enjoyed them, come in Latin\nEurope from a barbarian origin; and the movement which calls itself\nliberal is essentially national. If liberty were its object, its means\nwould be the establishment of great independent authorities not derived\nfrom the State, and its model would be England. But its object is\nequality; and it seeks, like France in 1789, to cast out the elements of\ninequality which were introduced by the Teutonic race. This is the\nobject which Italy and Spain have had in common with France, and herein\nconsists the natural league of the Latin nations.\n\nThis national element in the movement was not understood by the\nrevolutionary leaders. At first, their doctrine appeared entirely\ncontrary to the idea of nationality. They taught that certain general\nprinciples of government were absolutely right in all States; and they\nasserted in theory the unrestricted freedom of the individual, and the\nsupremacy of the will over every external necessity or obligation. This\nis in apparent contradiction to the national theory, that certain\nnatural forces ought to determine the character, the form, and the\npolicy of the State, by which a kind of fate is put in the place of\nfreedom. Accordingly the national sentiment was not developed directly\nout of the revolution in which it was involved, but was exhibited first\nin resistance to it, when the attempt to emancipate had been absorbed in\nthe desire to subjugate, and the republic had been succeeded by the\nempire. Napoleon called a new power into existence by attacking\nnationality in Russia, by delivering it in Italy, by governing in\ndefiance of it in Germany and Spain. The sovereigns of these countries\nwere deposed or degraded; and a system of administration was introduced\nwhich was French in its origin, its spirit, and its instruments. The\npeople resisted the change. The movement against it was popular and\nspontaneous, because the rulers were absent or helpless; and it was\nnational, because it was directed against foreign institutions. In\nTyrol, in Spain, and afterwards in Prussia, the people did not receive\nthe impulse from the government, but undertook of their own accord to\ncast out the armies and the ideas of revolutionised France. Men were\nmade conscious of the national element of the revolution by its\nconquests, not in its rise. The three things which the Empire most\nopenly oppressed--religion, national independence, and political\nliberty--united in a short-lived league to animate the great uprising by\nwhich Napoleon fell. Under the influence of that memorable alliance a\npolitical spirit was called forth on the Continent, which clung to\nfreedom and abhorred revolution, and sought to restore, to develop, and\nto reform the decayed national institutions. The men who proclaimed\nthese ideas, Stein and Goerres, Humboldt, Mueller, and De Maistre,[328]\nwere as hostile to Bonapartism as to the absolutism of the old\ngovernments, and insisted on the national rights, which had been invaded\nequally by both, and which they hoped to restore by the destruction of\nthe French supremacy. With the cause that triumphed at Waterloo the\nfriends of the Revolution had no sympathy, for they had learned to\nidentify their doctrine with the cause of France. The Holland House\nWhigs in England, the Afrancesados in Spain, the Muratists in Italy, and\nthe partisans of the Confederation of the Rhine, merging patriotism in\ntheir revolutionary affections, regretted the fall of the French power,\nand looked with alarm at those new and unknown forces which the War of\nDeliverance had evoked, and which were as menacing to French liberalism\nas to French supremacy.\n\nBut the new aspirations for national and popular rights were crushed at\nthe restoration. The liberals of those days cared for freedom, not in\nthe shape of national independence, but of French institutions; and they\ncombined against the nations with the ambition of the governments. They\nwere as ready to sacrifice nationality to their ideal as the Holy\nAlliance was to the interests of absolutism. Talleyrand indeed declared\nat Vienna that the Polish question ought to have precedence over all\nother questions, because the partition of Poland had been one of the\nfirst and greatest causes of the evils which Europe had suffered; but\ndynastic interests prevailed. All the sovereigns represented at Vienna\nrecovered their dominions, except the King of Saxony, who was punished\nfor his fidelity to Napoleon; but the States that were unrepresented in\nthe reigning families--Poland, Venice, and Genoa--were not revived, and\neven the Pope had great difficulty in recovering the Legations from the\ngrasp of Austria. Nationality, which the old _regime_ had ignored, which\nhad been outraged by the revolution and the empire, received, after its\nfirst open demonstration, the hardest blow at the Congress of Vienna.\nThe principle which the first partition had generated, to which the\nrevolution had given a basis of theory, which had been lashed by the\nempire into a momentary convulsive effort, was matured by the long error\nof the restoration into a consistent doctrine, nourished and justified\nby the situation of Europe.\n\nThe governments of the Holy Alliance devoted themselves to suppress with\nequal care the revolutionary spirit by which they had been threatened,\nand the national spirit by which they had been restored. Austria, which\nowed nothing to the national movement, and had prevented its revival\nafter 1809, naturally took the lead in repressing it. Every disturbance\nof the final settlements of 1815, every aspiration for changes or\nreforms, was condemned as sedition. This system repressed the good with\nthe evil tendencies of the age; and the resistance which it provoked,\nduring the generation that passed away from the restoration to the fall\nof Metternich, and again under the reaction which commenced with\nSchwarzenberg and ended with the administrations of Bach and Manteuffel,\nproceeded from various combinations of the opposite forms of liberalism.\nIn the successive phases of that struggle, the idea that national claims\nare above all other rights gradually rose to the supremacy which it now\npossesses among the revolutionary agencies.\n\nThe first liberal movement, that of the Carbonari in the south of\nEurope, had no specific national character, but was supported by the\nBonapartists both in Spain and Italy. In the following years the\nopposite ideas of 1813 came to the front, and a revolutionary movement,\nin many respects hostile to the principles of revolution, began in\ndefence of liberty, religion, and nationality. All these causes were\nunited in the Irish agitation, and in the Greek, Belgian, and Polish\nrevolutions. Those sentiments which had been insulted by Napoleon, and\nhad risen against him, rose against the governments of the restoration.\nThey had been oppressed by the sword, and then by the treaties. The\nnational principle added force, but not justice, to this movement,\nwhich, in every case but Poland, was successful. A period followed in\nwhich it degenerated into a purely national idea, as the agitation for\nrepeal succeeded emancipation, and Panslavism and Panhellenism arose\nunder the auspices of the Eastern Church. This was the third phase of\nthe resistance to the settlement of Vienna, which was weak, because it\nfailed to satisfy national or constitutional aspirations, either of\nwhich would have been a safeguard against the other, by a moral if not\nby a popular justification. At first, in 1813, the people rose against\ntheir conquerors, in defence of their legitimate rulers. They refused to\nbe governed by usurpers. In the period between 1825 and 1831, they\nresolved that they would not be misgoverned by strangers. The French\nadministration was often better than that which it displaced, but there\nwere prior claimants for the authority exercised by the French, and at\nfirst the national contest was a contest for legitimacy. In the second\nperiod this element was wanting. No dispossessed princes led the Greeks,\nthe Belgians, or the Poles. The Turks, the Dutch, and the Russians were\nattacked, not as usurpers, but as oppressors,--because they misgoverned,\nnot because they were of a different race. Then began a time when the\ntext simply was, that nations would not be governed by foreigners. Power\nlegitimately obtained, and exercised with moderation, was declared\ninvalid. National rights, like religion, had borne part in the previous\ncombinations, and had been auxiliaries in the struggles for freedom, but\nnow nationality became a paramount claim, which was to assert itself\nalone, which might put forward as pretexts the rights of rulers, the\nliberties of the people, the safety of religion, but which, if no such\nunion could be formed, was to prevail at the expense of every other\ncause for which nations make sacrifices.\n\nMetternich is, next to Napoleon, the chief promoter of this theory; for\nthe anti-national character of the restoration was most distinct in\nAustria, and it is in opposition to the Austrian Government that\nnationality grew into a system. Napoleon, who, trusting to his armies,\ndespised moral forces in politics, was overthrown by their rising.\nAustria committed the same fault in the government of her Italian\nprovinces. The kingdom of Italy had united all the northern part of the\nPeninsula in a single State; and the national feelings, which the French\nrepressed elsewhere, were encouraged as a safeguard of their power in\nItaly and in Poland. When the tide of victory turned, Austria invoked\nagainst the French the aid of the new sentiment they had fostered.\nNugent announced, in his proclamation to the Italians, that they should\nbecome an independent nation. The same spirit served different masters,\nand contributed first to the destruction of the old States, then to the\nexpulsion of the French, and again, under Charles Albert, to a new\nrevolution. It was appealed to in the name of the most contradictory\nprinciples of government, and served all parties in succession, because\nit was one in which all could unite. Beginning by a protest against the\ndominion of race over race, its mildest and least-developed form, it\ngrew into a condemnation of every State that included different races,\nand finally became the complete and consistent theory, that the State\nand the nation must be co-extensive. \"It is,\" says Mr. Mill, \"in general\na necessary condition of free institutions, that the boundaries of\ngovernments should coincide in the main with those of nationalities.\"[329]\n\nThe outward historical progress of this idea from an indefinite\naspiration to be the keystone of a political system, may be traced in\nthe life of the man who gave to it the element in which its strength\nresides,--Giuseppe Mazzini. He found Carbonarism impotent against the\nmeasures of the governments, and resolved to give new life to the\nliberal movement by transferring it to the ground of nationality. Exile\nis the nursery of nationality, as oppression is the school of\nliberalism; and Mazzini conceived the idea of Young Italy when he was a\nrefugee at Marseilles. In the same way, the Polish exiles are the\nchampions of every national movement; for to them all political rights\nare absorbed in the idea of independence, which, however they may differ\nwith each other, is the one aspiration common to them all. Towards the\nyear 1830 literature also contributed to the national idea. \"It was the\ntime,\" says Mazzini, \"of the great conflict between the romantic and the\nclassical school, which might with equal truth be called a conflict\nbetween the partisans of freedom and of authority.\" The romantic school\nwas infidel in Italy, and Catholic in Germany; but in both it had the\ncommon effect of encouraging national history and literature, and Dante\nwas as great an authority with the Italian democrats as with the leaders\nof the mediaeval revival at Vienna, Munich, and Berlin. But neither the\ninfluence of the exiles, nor that of the poets and critics of the new\nparty, extended over the masses. It was a sect without popular sympathy\nor encouragement, a conspiracy founded not on a grievance, but on a\ndoctrine; and when the attempt to rise was made in Savoy, in 1834, under\na banner with the motto \"Unity, Independence, God and Humanity,\" the\npeople were puzzled at its object, and indifferent to its failure. But\nMazzini continued his propaganda, developed his _Giovine Italia_ into a\n_Giovine Europa_, and established in 1847 the international league of\nnations. \"The people,\" he said, in his opening address, \"is penetrated\nwith only one idea, that of unity and nationality.... There is no\ninternational question as to forms of government, but only a national\nquestion.\"\n\nThe revolution of 1848, unsuccessful in its national purpose, prepared\nthe subsequent victories of nationality in two ways. The first of these\nwas the restoration of the Austrian power in Italy, with a new and more\nenergetic centralisation, which gave no promise of freedom. Whilst that\nsystem prevailed, the right was on the side of the national aspirations,\nand they were revived in a more complete and cultivated form by Manin.\nThe policy of the Austrian Government, which failed during the ten years\nof the reaction to convert the tenure by force into a tenure by right,\nand to establish with free institutions the condition of allegiance,\ngave a negative encouragement to the theory. It deprived Francis Joseph\nof all active support and sympathy in 1859, for he was more clearly\nwrong in his conduct than his enemies in their doctrines. The real cause\nof the energy which the national theory has acquired is, however, the\ntriumph of the democratic principle in France, and its recognition by\nthe European Powers. The theory of nationality is involved in the\ndemocratic theory of the sovereignty of the general will. \"One hardly\nknows what any division of the human race should be free to do, if not\nto determine with which of the various collective bodies of human beings\nthey choose to associate themselves.\"[330] It is by this act that a\nnation constitutes itself. To have a collective will, unity is\nnecessary, and independence is requisite in order to assert it. Unity\nand nationality are still more essential to the notion of the\nsovereignty of the people than the cashiering of monarchs, or the\nrevocation of laws. Arbitrary acts of this kind may be prevented by the\nhappiness of the people or the popularity of the king, but a nation\ninspired by the democratic idea cannot with consistency allow a part of\nitself to belong to a foreign State, or the whole to be divided into\nseveral native States. The theory of nationality therefore proceeds from\nboth the principles which divide the political world,--from legitimacy,\nwhich ignores its claims, and from the revolution, which assumes them;\nand for the same reason it is the chief weapon of the last against the\nfirst.\n\nIn pursuing the outward and visible growth of the national theory we are\nprepared for an examination of its political character and value. The\nabsolutism which has created it denies equally that absolute right of\nnational unity which is a product of democracy, and that claim of\nnational liberty which belongs to the theory of freedom. These two views\nof nationality, corresponding to the French and to the English systems,\nare connected in name only, and are in reality the opposite extremes of\npolitical thought. In one case, nationality is founded on the perpetual\nsupremacy of the collective will, of which the unity of the nation is\nthe necessary condition, to which every other influence must defer, and\nagainst which no obligation enjoys authority, and all resistance is\ntyrannical. The nation is here an ideal unit founded on the race, in\ndefiance of the modifying action of external causes, of tradition, and\nof existing rights. It overrules the rights and wishes of the\ninhabitants, absorbing their divergent interests in a fictitious unity;\nsacrifices their several inclinations and duties to the higher claim of\nnationality, and crushes all natural rights and all established\nliberties for the purpose of vindicating itself.[331] Whenever a single\ndefinite object is made the supreme end of the State, be it the\nadvantage of a class, the safety or the power of the country, the\ngreatest happiness of the greatest number, or the support of any\nspeculative idea, the State becomes for the time inevitably absolute.\nLiberty alone demands for its realisation the limitation of the public\nauthority, for liberty is the only object which benefits all alike, and\nprovokes no sincere opposition. In supporting the claims of national\nunity, governments must be subverted in whose title there is no flaw,\nand whose policy is beneficent and equitable, and subjects must be\ncompelled to transfer their allegiance to an authority for which they\nhave no attachment, and which may be practically a foreign domination.\nConnected with this theory in nothing except in the common enmity of the\nabsolute state, is the theory which represents nationality as an\nessential, but not a supreme element in determining the forms of the\nState. It is distinguished from the other, because it tends to diversity\nand not to uniformity, to harmony and not to unity; because it aims not\nat an arbitrary change, but at careful respect for the existing\nconditions of political life, and because it obeys the laws and results\nof history, not the aspirations of an ideal future. While the theory of\nunity makes the nation a source of despotism and revolution, the theory\nof liberty regards it as the bulwark of self-government, and the\nforemost limit to the excessive power of the State. Private rights,\nwhich are sacrificed to the unity, are preserved by the union of\nnations. No power can so efficiently resist the tendencies of\ncentralisation, of corruption, and of absolutism, as that community\nwhich is the vastest that can be included in a State, which imposes on\nits members a consistent similarity of character, interest, and opinion,\nand which arrests the action of the sovereign by the influence of a\ndivided patriotism. The presence of different nations under the same\nsovereignty is similar in its effect to the independence of the Church\nin the State. It provides against the servility which flourishes under\nthe shadow of a single authority, by balancing interests, multiplying\nassociations, and giving to the subject the restraint and support of a\ncombined opinion. In the same way it promotes independence by forming\ndefinite groups of public opinion, and by affording a great source and\ncentre of political sentiments, and of notions of duty not derived from\nthe sovereign will. Liberty provokes diversity, and diversity preserves\nliberty by supplying the means of organisation. All those portions of\nlaw which govern the relations of men with each other, and regulate\nsocial life, are the varying result of national custom and the creation\nof private society. In these things, therefore, the several nations\nwill differ from each other; for they themselves have produced them, and\nthey do not owe them to the State which rules them all. This diversity\nin the same State is a firm barrier against the intrusion of the\ngovernment beyond the political sphere which is common to all into the\nsocial department which escapes legislation and is ruled by spontaneous\nlaws. This sort of interference is characteristic of an absolute\ngovernment, and is sure to provoke a reaction, and finally a remedy.\nThat intolerance of social freedom which is natural to absolutism is\nsure to find a corrective in the national diversities, which no other\nforce could so efficiently provide. The co-existence of several nations\nunder the same State is a test, as well as the best security of its\nfreedom. It is also one of the chief instruments of civilisation; and,\nas such, it is in the natural and providential order, and indicates a\nstate of greater advancement than the national unity which is the ideal\nof modern liberalism.\n\nThe combination of different nations in one State is as necessary a\ncondition of civilised life as the combination of men in society.\nInferior races are raised by living in political union with races\nintellectually superior. Exhausted and decaying nations are revived by\nthe contact of a younger vitality. Nations in which the elements of\norganisation and the capacity for government have been lost, either\nthrough the demoralising influence of despotism, or the disintegrating\naction of democracy, are restored and educated anew under the discipline\nof a stronger and less corrupted race. This fertilising and regenerating\nprocess can only be obtained by living under one government. It is in\nthe cauldron of the State that the fusion takes place by which the\nvigour, the knowledge, and the capacity of one portion of mankind may be\ncommunicated to another. Where political and national boundaries\ncoincide, society ceases to advance, and nations relapse into a\ncondition corresponding to that of men who renounce intercourse with\ntheir fellow-men. The difference between the two unites mankind not only\nby the benefits it confers on those who live together, but because it\nconnects society either by a political or a national bond, gives to\nevery people an interest in its neighbours, either because they are\nunder the same government or because they are of the same race, and thus\npromotes the interests of humanity, of civilisation, and of religion.\n\nChristianity rejoices at the mixture of races, as paganism identifies\nitself with their differences, because truth is universal, and errors\nvarious and particular. In the ancient world idolatry and nationality\nwent together, and the same term is applied in Scripture to both. It was\nthe mission of the Church to overcome national differences. The period\nof her undisputed supremacy was that in which all Western Europe obeyed\nthe same laws, all literature was contained in one language, and the\npolitical unity of Christendom was personified in a single potentate,\nwhile its intellectual unity was represented in one university. As the\nancient Romans concluded their conquests by carrying away the gods of\nthe conquered people, Charlemagne overcame the national resistance of\nthe Saxons only by the forcible destruction of their pagan rites. Out of\nthe mediaeval period, and the combined action of the German race and the\nChurch, came forth a new system of nations and a new conception of\nnationality. Nature was overcome in the nation as well as in the\nindividual. In pagan and uncultivated times, nations were distinguished\nfrom each other by the widest diversity, not only in religion, but in\ncustoms, language, and character. Under the new law they had many things\nin common; the old barriers which separated them were removed, and the\nnew principle of self-government, which Christianity imposed, enabled\nthem to live together under the same authority, without necessarily\nlosing their cherished habits, their customs, or their laws. The new\nidea of freedom made room for different races in one State. A nation was\nno longer what it had been to the ancient world,--the progeny of a\ncommon ancestor, or the aboriginal product of a particular region,--a\nresult of merely physical and material causes,--but a moral and\npolitical being; not the creation of geographical or physiological\nunity, but developed in the course of history by the action of the\nState. It is derived from the State, not supreme over it. A State may in\ncourse of time produce a nationality; but that a nationality should\nconstitute a State is contrary to the nature of modern civilisation. The\nnation derives its rights and its power from the memory of a former\nindependence.\n\nThe Church has agreed in this respect with the tendency of political\nprogress, and discouraged wherever she could the isolation of nations;\nadmonishing them of their duties to each other, and regarding conquest\nand feudal investiture as the natural means of raising barbarous or\nsunken nations to a higher level. But though she has never attributed to\nnational independence an immunity from the accidental consequences of\nfeudal law, of hereditary claims, or of testamentary arrangements, she\ndefends national liberty against uniformity and centralisation with an\nenergy inspired by perfect community of interests. For the same enemy\nthreatens both; and the State which is reluctant to tolerate\ndifferences, and to do justice to the peculiar character of various\nraces, must from the same cause interfere in the internal government of\nreligion. The connection of religious liberty with the emancipation of\nPoland or Ireland is not merely the accidental result of local causes;\nand the failure of the Concordat to unite the subjects of Austria is the\nnatural consequence of a policy which did not desire to protect the\nprovinces in their diversity and autonomy, and sought to bribe the\nChurch by favours instead of strengthening her by independence. From\nthis influence of religion in modern history has proceeded a new\ndefinition of patriotism.\n\nThe difference between nationality and the State is exhibited in the\nnature of patriotic attachment. Our connection with the race is merely\nnatural or physical, whilst our duties to the political nation are\nethical. One is a community of affections and instincts infinitely\nimportant and powerful in savage life, but pertaining more to the animal\nthan to the civilised man; the other is an authority governing by laws,\nimposing obligations, and giving a moral sanction and character to the\nnatural relations of society. Patriotism is in political life what faith\nis in religion, and it stands to the domestic feelings and to\nhome-sickness as faith to fanaticism and to superstition. It has one\naspect derived from private life and nature, for it is an extension of\nthe family affections, as the tribe is an extension of the family. But\nin its real political character, patriotism consists in the development\nof the instinct of self-preservation into a moral duty which may involve\nself-sacrifice. Self-preservation is both an instinct and a duty,\nnatural and involuntary in one respect, and at the same time a moral\nobligation. By the first it produces the family; by the last the State.\nIf the nation could exist without the State, subject only to the\ninstinct of self-preservation, it would be incapable of denying,\ncontrolling, or sacrificing itself; it would be an end and a rule to\nitself. But in the political order moral purposes are realised and\npublic ends are pursued to which private interests and even existence\nmust be sacrificed. The great sign of true patriotism, the development\nof selfishness into sacrifice, is the product of political life. That\nsense of duty which is supplied by race is not entirely separated from\nits selfish and instinctive basis; and the love of country, like married\nlove, stands at the same time on a material and a moral foundation. The\npatriot must distinguish between the two causes or objects of his\ndevotion. The attachment which is given only to the country is like\nobedience given only to the State--a submission to physical influences.\nThe man who prefers his country before every other duty shows the same\nspirit as the man who surrenders every right to the State. They both\ndeny that right is superior to authority.\n\nThere is a moral and political country, in the language of Burke,\ndistinct from the geographical, which may be possibly in collision with\nit The Frenchmen who bore arms against the Convention were as patriotic\nas the Englishmen who bore arms against King Charles, for they\nrecognised a higher duty than that of obedience to the actual\nsovereign. \"In an address to France,\" said Burke, \"in an attempt to\ntreat with it, or in considering any scheme at all relative to it, it is\nimpossible we should mean the geographical, we must always mean the\nmoral and political, country.... The truth is, that France is out of\nitself--the moral France is separated from the geographical. The master\nof the house is expelled, and the robbers are in possession. If we look\nfor the corporate people of France, existing as corporate in the eye and\nintention of public law (that corporate people, I mean, who are free to\ndeliberate and to decide, and who have a capacity to treat and\nconclude), they are in Flanders and Germany, in Switzerland, Spain,\nItaly, and England. There are all the princes of the blood, there are\nall the orders of the State, there are all the parliaments of the\nkingdom.... I am sure that if half that number of the same description\nwere taken out of this country, it would leave hardly anything that I\nshould call the people of England.\"[332] Rousseau draws nearly the same\ndistinction between the country to which we happen to belong and that\nwhich fulfils towards us the political functions of the State. In the\n_Emile_ he has a sentence of which it is not easy in a translation to\nconvey the point: \"Qui n'a pas une patrie a du moins un pays.\" And in\nhis tract on Political Economy he writes: \"How shall men love their\ncountry if it is nothing more for them than for strangers, and bestows\non them only that which it can refuse to none?\" It is in the same sense\nhe says, further on, \"La patrie ne peut subsister sans la liberte.\"[333]\n\nThe nationality formed by the State, then, is the only one to which we\nowe political duties, and it is, therefore, the only one which has\npolitical rights. The Swiss are ethnologically either French, Italian,\nor German; but no nationality has the slightest claim upon them, except\nthe purely political nationality of Switzerland. The Tuscan or the\nNeapolitan State has formed a nationality, but the citizens of Florence\nand of Naples have no political community with each other. There are\nother States which have neither succeeded in absorbing distinct races in\na political nationality, nor in separating a particular district from a\nlarger nation. Austria and Mexico are instances on the one hand, Parma\nand Baden on the other. The progress of civilisation deals hardly with\nthe last description of States. In order to maintain their integrity\nthey must attach themselves by confederations, or family alliances, to\ngreater Powers, and thus lose something of their independence. Their\ntendency is to isolate and shut off their inhabitants, to narrow the\nhorizon of their views, and to dwarf in some degree the proportions of\ntheir ideas. Public opinion cannot maintain its liberty and purity in\nsuch small dimensions, and the currents that come from larger\ncommunities sweep over a contracted territory. In a small and\nhomogeneous population there is hardly room for a natural classification\nof society, or for inner groups of interests that set bounds to\nsovereign power. The government and the subjects contend with borrowed\nweapons. The resources of the one and the aspirations of the other are\nderived from some external source, and the consequence is that the\ncountry becomes the instrument and the scene of contests in which it is\nnot interested. These States, like the minuter communities of the Middle\nAges, serve a purpose, by constituting partitions and securities of\nself-government in the larger States; but they are impediments to the\nprogress of society, which depends on the mixture of races under the\nsame governments.\n\nThe vanity and peril of national claims founded on no political\ntradition, but on race alone, appear in Mexico. There the races are\ndivided by blood, without being grouped together in different regions.\nIt is, therefore, neither possible to unite them nor to convert them\ninto the elements of an organised State. They are fluid, shapeless, and\nunconnected, and cannot be precipitated, or formed into the basis of\npolitical institutions. As they cannot be used by the State, they cannot\nbe recognised by it; and their peculiar qualities, capabilities,\npassions, and attachments are of no service, and therefore obtain no\nregard. They are necessarily ignored, and are therefore perpetually\noutraged. From this difficulty of races with political pretensions, but\nwithout political position, the Eastern world escaped by the institution\nof castes. Where there are only two races there is the resource of\nslavery; but when different races inhabit the different territories of\none Empire composed of several smaller States, it is of all possible\ncombinations the most favourable to the establishment of a highly\ndeveloped system of freedom. In Austria there are two circumstances\nwhich add to the difficulty of the problem, but also increase its\nimportance. The several nationalities are at very unequal degrees of\nadvancement, and there is no single nation which is so predominant as to\noverwhelm or absorb the others. These are the conditions necessary for\nthe very highest degree of organisation which government is capable of\nreceiving. They supply the greatest variety of intellectual resource;\nthe perpetual incentive to progress, which is afforded not merely by\ncompetition, but by the spectacle of a more advanced people; the most\nabundant elements of self-government, combined with the impossibility\nfor the State to rule all by its own will; and the fullest security for\nthe preservation of local customs and ancient rights. In such a country\nas this, liberty would achieve its most glorious results, while\ncentralisation and absolutism would be destruction.\n\nThe problem presented to the government of Austria is higher than that\nwhich is solved in England, because of the necessity of admitting the\nnational claims. The parliamentary system fails to provide for them, as\nit presupposes the unity of the people. Hence in those countries in\nwhich different races dwell together, it has not satisfied their\ndesires, and is regarded as an imperfect form of freedom. It brings out\nmore clearly than before the differences it does not recognise, and thus\ncontinues the work of the old absolutism, and appears as a new phase of\ncentralisation. In those countries, therefore, the power of the imperial\nparliament must be limited as jealously as the power of the crown, and\nmany of its functions must be discharged by provincial diets, and a\ndescending series of local authorities.\n\nThe great importance of nationality in the State consists in the fact\nthat it is the basis of political capacity. The character of a nation\ndetermines in great measure the form and vitality of the State. Certain\npolitical habits and ideas belong to particular nations, and they vary\nwith the course of the national history. A people just emerging from\nbarbarism, a people effete from the excesses of a luxurious\ncivilisation, cannot possess the means of governing itself; a people\ndevoted to equality, or to absolute monarchy, is incapable of producing\nan aristocracy; a people averse to the institution of private property\nis without the first element of freedom. Each of these can be converted\ninto efficient members of a free community only by the contact of a\nsuperior race, in whose power will lie the future prospects of the\nState. A system which ignores these things, and does not rely for its\nsupport on the character and aptitude of the people, does not intend\nthat they should administer their own affairs, but that they should\nsimply be obedient to the supreme command. The denial of nationality,\ntherefore, implies the denial of political liberty.\n\nThe greatest adversary of the rights of nationality is the modern theory\nof nationality. By making the State and the nation commensurate with\neach other in theory, it reduces practically to a subject condition all\nother nationalities that may be within the boundary. It cannot admit\nthem to an equality with the ruling nation which constitutes the State,\nbecause the State would then cease to be national, which would be a\ncontradiction of the principle of its existence. According, therefore,\nto the degree of humanity and civilisation in that dominant body which\nclaims all the rights of the community, the inferior races are\nexterminated, or reduced to servitude, or outlawed, or put in a\ncondition of dependence.\n\nIf we take the establishment of liberty for the realisation of moral\nduties to be the end of civil society, we must conclude that those\nstates are substantially the most perfect which, like the British and\nAustrian Empires, include various distinct nationalities without\noppressing them. Those in which no mixture of races has occurred are\nimperfect; and those in which its effects have disappeared are decrepit.\nA State which is incompetent to satisfy different races condemns itself;\na State which labours to neutralise, to absorb, or to expel them,\ndestroys its own vitality; a State which does not include them is\ndestitute of the chief basis of self-government The theory of\nnationality, therefore, is a retrograde step in history. It is the most\nadvanced form of the revolution, and must retain its power to the end of\nthe revolutionary period, of which it announces the approach. Its great\nhistorical importance depends on two chief causes.\n\nFirst, it is a chimera. The settlement at which it aims is impossible.\nAs it can never be satisfied and exhausted, and always continues to\nassert itself, it prevents the government from ever relapsing into the\ncondition which provoked its rise. The danger is too threatening, and\nthe power over men's minds too great, to allow any system to endure\nwhich justifies the resistance of nationality. It must contribute,\ntherefore, to obtain that which in theory it condemns,--the liberty of\ndifferent nationalities as members of one sovereign community. This is a\nservice which no other force could accomplish; for it is a corrective\nalike of absolute monarchy, of democracy, and of constitutionalism, as\nwell as of the centralisation which is common to all three. Neither the\nmonarchical, nor the revolutionary, nor the parliamentary system can do\nthis; and all the ideas which have excited enthusiasm in past times are\nimpotent for the purpose except nationality alone.\n\nAnd secondly, the national theory marks the end of the revolutionary\ndoctrine and its logical exhaustion. In proclaiming the supremacy of the\nrights of nationality, the system of democratic equality goes beyond its\nown extreme boundary, and falls into contradiction with itself. Between\nthe democratic and the national phase of the revolution, socialism had\nintervened, and had already carried the consequences of the principle to\nan absurdity. But that phase was passed. The revolution survived its\noffspring, and produced another further result. Nationality is more\nadvanced than socialism, because it is a more arbitrary system. The\nsocial theory endeavours to provide for the existence of the individual\nbeneath the terrible burdens which modern society heaps upon labour. It\nis not merely a development of the notion of equality, but a refuge from\nreal misery and starvation. However false the solution, it was a\nreasonable demand that the poor should be saved from destruction; and if\nthe freedom of the State was sacrificed to the safety of the individual,\nthe more immediate object was, at least in theory, attained. But\nnationality does not aim either at liberty or prosperity, both of which\nit sacrifices to the imperative necessity of making the nation the mould\nand measure of the State. Its course will be marked with material as\nwell as moral ruin, in order that a new invention may prevail over the\nworks of God and the interests of mankind. There is no principle of\nchange, no phase of political speculation conceivable, more\ncomprehensive, more subversive, or more arbitrary than this. It is a\nconfutation of democracy, because it sets limits to the exercise of the\npopular will, and substitutes for it a higher principle. It prevents not\nonly the division, but the extension of the State, and forbids to\nterminate war by conquest, and to obtain a security for peace. Thus,\nafter surrendering the individual to the collective will, the\nrevolutionary system makes the collective will subject to conditions\nwhich are independent of it, and rejects all law, only to be controlled\nby an accident.\n\nAlthough, therefore, the theory of nationality is more absurd and more\ncriminal than the theory of socialism, it has an important mission in\nthe world, and marks the final conflict, and therefore the end, of two\nforces which are the worst enemies of civil freedom,--the absolute\nmonarchy and the revolution.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 326: _Home and Foreign Review_, July 1862.]\n\n[Footnote 327: \"Observations on the Conduct of the Minority,\" _Works_,\nv. 112.]\n\n[Footnote 328: There are some remarkable thoughts on nationality in the\nState Papers of the Count de Maistre: \"En premier lieu les nations sont\nquelque chose dans le monde, il n'est pas permis de les compter pour\nrien, de les affliger dans leurs convenances, dans leurs affections,\ndans leurs interets les plus chers.... Or le traite du 30 mai aneantit\ncompletement la Savoie; il divise l'indivisible; il partage en trois\nportions une malheureuse nation de 400,000 hommes, une par la langue,\nune par la religion, une par le caractere, une par l'habitude inveteree,\nune enfin par les limites naturelles.... L'union des nations ne souffre\npas de difficultes sur la carte geographique; mais dans la realite,\nc'est autre chose; il y a des nations _immiscibles_.... Je lui parlai\npar occasion de l'esprit italien qui s'agite dans ce moment; il (Count\nNesselrode) me repondit: 'Oui, Monsieur; mais cet esprit est un grand\nmal, car il peut gener les arrangements de l'Italie.'\" (_Correspondance\nDiplomatique de J. de Maistre_, ii. 7, 8, 21, 25). In the same year,\n1815, Goerres wrote: \"In Italien wie allerwaerts ist das Volk gewecht; es\nwill etwas grossartiges, es will Ideen haben, die, wenn es sie auch\nnicht ganz begreift, doch einen freien unendlichen Gesichtskreis seiner\nEinbildung eroeffnen. ... Es ist reiner Naturtrieb, dass ein Volk, also\nscharf und deutlich in seine natuerlichen Graenzen eingeschlossen, aus der\nZerstreuung in die Einheit sich zu sammeln sucht.\" (_Werke_, ii. 20).]\n\n[Footnote 329: _Considerations on Representative Government_, p. 298.]\n\n[Footnote 330: Mill's _Considerations_, p. 296.]\n\n[Footnote 331: \"Le sentiment d'independance nationale est encore plus\ngeneral et plus profondement grave dans le coeur des peuples que l'amour\nd'une liberte constitutionnelle. Les nations les plus soumises au\ndespotisme eprouvent ce sentiment avec autant de vivacite que les\nnations libres; les peuples les plus barbares le sentent meme encore\nplus vivement que les nations policees\" (_L'Italie au Dix-neuvieme\nSiecle_, p. 148, Paris, 1821).]\n\n[Footnote 332: Burke's \"Remarks on the Policy of the Allies\" (_Works_,\nv. 26, 29, 30).]\n\n[Footnote 333: _OEuvres_, i. 593, 595, ii. 717. Bossuet, in a passage of\ngreat beauty on the love of country, does not attain to the political\ndefinition of the word: \"La societe humaine demande qu'on aime la terre\nou l'on habite ensemble, ou la regarde comme une mere et une nourrice\ncommune.... Les hommes en effet se sentent lies par quelque chose de\nfort, lorsqu'ils songent, que la meme terre qui les a portes et nourris\netant vivants, les recevra dans son sein quand ils seront morts\"\n(\"Politique tiree de l'Ecriture Sainte,\" _OEuvres_, x. 317).]\n\n\n\n\nX\n\nDOeLLINGER ON THE TEMPORAL POWER[334]\n\n\nAfter half a year's delay, Dr. Doellinger has redeemed his promise to\npublish the text of those lectures which made so profound a sensation in\nthe Catholic world.[335] We are sorry to find that the report which fell\ninto our hands at the time, and from which we gave the account that\nappeared in our May Number, was both defective and incorrect; and we\nshould further regret that we did not follow the example of those\njournals which abstained from comment so long as no authentic copy was\naccessible, if it did not appear that, although the argument of the\nlecturer was lost, his meaning was not, on the whole, seriously\nmisrepresented. Excepting for the sake of the author, who became the\nobject, and of those who unfortunately made themselves the organs, of so\nmuch calumny, it is impossible to lament the existence of the erroneous\nstatements which have caused the present publication. Intending at first\nto prefix an introduction to the text of his lectures, the Professor has\nbeen led on by the gravity of the occasion, the extent of his subject,\nand the abundance of materials, to compose a book of 700 pages. Written\nwith all the author's perspicuity of style, though without his usual\ncompression; with the exhaustless information which never fails him, but\nwith an economy of quotation suited to the general public for whom it is\ndesigned, it betrays the circumstances of its origin. Subjects are\nsometimes introduced out of their proper place and order; and there are\noccasional repetitions, which show that he had not at starting fixed the\nproportions of the different parts of his work. This does not, however,\naffect the logical sequence of the ideas, or the accuracy of the\ninduction. No other book contains--no other writer probably could\nsupply--so comprehensive and so suggestive a description of the state of\nthe Protestant religion, or so impartial an account of the causes which\nhave brought on the crisis of the temporal power.\n\nThe _Symbolik_ of Moehler was suggested by the beginning of that movement\nof revival and resuscitation amongst the Protestants, of which Doellinger\nnow surveys the fortunes and the result. The interval of thirty years\nhas greatly altered the position of the Catholic divines towards their\nantagonists. Moehler had to deal with the ideas of the Reformation, the\nworks of the Reformers, and the teaching of the confessions; he had to\nanswer in the nineteenth century the theology of the sixteenth. The\nProtestantism for which he wrote was a complete system, antagonistic to\nthe whole of Catholic theology, and he confuted the one by comparing it\nwith the other, dogma for dogma. But that of which Doellinger treats has\nlost, for the most part, those distinctive doctrines, not by the growth\nof unbelief, but in consequence of the very efforts which its most\nzealous and religious professors have made to defend and to redeem it.\nThe contradictions and errors of the Protestant belief were formerly the\nsubject of controversy with its Catholic opponents, but now the\ncontroversy is anticipated and prevented by the undisguised admissions\nof its desponding friends. It stands no longer as a system consistent,\ncomplete, satisfying the judgment and commanding the unconditional\nallegiance of its followers, and fortified at all points against\nCatholicism; but disorganised as a church, its doctrines in a state of\ndissolution, despaired of by its divines, strong and compact only in its\nhostility to Rome, but with no positive principle of unity, no ground of\nresistance, nothing to have faith in but the determination to reject\nauthority. This, therefore, is the point which Doellinger takes up.\nReducing the chief phenomena of religious and social decline to the one\nhead of failing authority, he founds on the state of Protestantism the\napology of the Papacy. He abandons to the Protestant theology the\ndestruction of the Protestant Church, and leaves its divines to confute\nand abjure its principles in detail, and to arrive by the exhaustion of\nthe modes of error, through a painful but honourable process, at the\ngates of truth; he meets their arguments simply by a chapter of\necclesiastical history, of which experience teaches them the force; and\nhe opposes to their theories, not the discussions of controversial\ntheology, but the character of a single institution. The opportunity he\nhas taken to do this, the assumed coincidence between the process of\ndissolution among the Protestants and the process of regeneration in the\nCourt of Rome, is the characteristic peculiarity of the book. Before we\nproceed to give an analysis of its contents, we will give some extracts\nfrom the Preface, which explains the purpose of the whole, and which is\nalone one of the most important contributions to the religious\ndiscussions of the day.\n\n   This book arose from two out of four lectures which were delivered in\n   April this year. How I came to discuss the most difficult and\n   complicated question of our time before a very mixed audience, and in\n   a manner widely different from that usually adopted, I deem myself\n   bound to explain. It was my intention, when I was first requested to\n   lecture, only to speak of the present state of religion in general,\n   with a comprehensive view extending over all mankind. It happened,\n   however, that from those circles which had given the impulse to the\n   lectures, the question was frequently put to me, how the position of\n   the Holy See, the partly consummated, partly threatening, loss of its\n   secular power is to be explained. What answer, I was repeatedly\n   asked, is to be given to those out of the Church who point with\n   triumphant scorn to the numerous Episcopal manifestoes, in which the\n   States of the Church are declared essential and necessary to her\n   existence although the events of the last thirty years appear with\n   increasing distinctness to announce their downfall? I had found the\n   hope often expressed in newspapers, books, and periodicals, that\n   after the destruction of the temporal power of the Popes, the Church\n   herself would not escape dissolution. At the same time, I was struck\n   by finding in the memoirs of Chateaubriand that Cardinal Bernetti,\n   Secretary of State to Leo XII., had said, that if he lived long,\n   there was a chance of his beholding the fall of the temporal power of\n   the Papacy. I had also read, in the letter of a well-informed and\n   trustworthy correspondent from Paris, that the Archbishop of Rheims\n   had related on his return from Rome that Pius IX. had said to him, \"I\n   am under no illusions, the temporal power must fall. Goyon will\n   abandon me; I shall then disband my remaining troops. I shall\n   excommunicate the king when he enters the city; and shall calmly\n   await my death.\"\n\n   I thought already, in April, that I could perceive, what has become\n   still more clear in October, that the enemies of the secular power of\n   the Papacy are determined, united, predominant, and that there is\n   nowhere a protecting power which possesses the will, and at the same\n   time the means, of averting the catastrophe. I considered it\n   therefore probable that an interruption of the temporal dominion\n   would soon ensue--an interruption which, like others before it, would\n   also come to an end, and would be followed by a restoration. I\n   resolved, therefore, to take the opportunity, which the lectures gave\n   me, to prepare the public for the coming events, which already cast\n   their shadows upon us, and thus to prevent the scandals, the doubt,\n   and the offence which must inevitably arise if the States of the\n   Church should pass into other hands, although the pastorals of the\n   Bishops had so energetically asserted that they belonged to the\n   integrity of the Church. I meant, therefore, to say, the Church by\n   her nature can very well exist, and did exist for seven centuries,\n   without the territorial possessions of the Popes; afterwards this\n   possession became necessary, and, in spite of great changes and\n   vicissitudes, has discharged in most cases its function of serving as\n   a foundation for the independence and freedom of the Popes. As long\n   as the present state and arrangement of Europe endures, we can\n   discover no other means to secure to the Holy See its freedom, and\n   with it the confidence of all. But the knowledge and the power of God\n   reach farther than ours, and we must not presume to set bounds to the\n   Divine wisdom and omnipotence, or to say to it, In this way and no\n   other! Should, nevertheless, the threatening consummation ensue, and\n   should the Pope be robbed of his land, one of three eventualities\n   will assuredly come to pass. Either the loss of the State is only\n   temporary, and the territory will revert, after some intervening\n   casualties, either whole or in part, to its legitimate sovereign; or\n   Providence will bring about, by ways unknown to us, and combinations\n   which we cannot divine, a state of things in which the object,\n   namely, the independence and free action of the Holy See, will be\n   attained without the means which have hitherto served; or else we are\n   approaching great catastrophes in Europe, the doom of the whole\n   edifice of the present social order,--events of which the ruin of the\n   Roman State is only the precursor and the herald.\n\n   The reasons for which, of these three possibilities, I think the\n   first the most probable, I have developed in this book. Concerning\n   the second alternative, there is nothing to be said; it is an\n   unknown, and therefore, indescribable, quantity. Only we must retain\n   it against certain over-confident assertions which profess to know\n   the secret things to come, and, trespassing on the divine domain,\n   wish to subject the Future absolutely to the laws of the immediate\n   Past. That the third possibility must also be admitted, few of those\n   who studiously observe the signs of the time will dispute. One of the\n   ablest historians and statesmen--Niebuhr--wrote on the 5th October\n   1830: \"If God does not miraculously aid, a destruction is in store\n   for us such as the Roman world underwent in the middle of the third\n   century--destruction of prosperity, of freedom, of civilisation, and\n   of literature.\" And we have proceeded much farther on the inclined\n   plane since then. The European Powers have overturned, or have\n   allowed to be overturned, the two pillars of their existence,--the\n   principle of legitimacy, and the public law of nations. Those\n   monarchs who have made themselves the slaves of the Revolution, to do\n   its work, are the active agents in the historical drama; the others\n   stand aside as quiet spectators, in expectation of inheriting\n   something, like Prussia and Russia, or bestowing encouragement and\n   assistance, like England; or as passive invalids, like Austria and\n   the sinking empire of Turkey. But the Revolution is a permanent\n   chronic disease, breaking out now in one place, now in another,\n   sometimes seizing several members together. The Pentarchy is\n   dissolved; the Holy Alliance, which, however defective or open to\n   abuse, was one form of political order, is buried; the right of might\n   prevails in Europe. Is it a process of renovation or a process of\n   dissolution in which European society is plunged? I still think the\n   former; but I must, as I have said, admit the possibility of the\n   other alternative. If it occurs, then, when the powers of destruction\n   have done their work, it will be the business of the Church at once\n   to co-operate actively in the reconstruction of social order out of\n   the ruins, both as a connecting civilising power, and as the\n   preserver and dispenser of moral and religious tradition. And thus\n   the Papacy, with or without territory, has its own function and its\n   appointed mission.\n\n   These, then, were the ideas from which I started; and it may be\n   supposed that my language concerning the immediate fate of the\n   temporal power of the Pope necessarily sounded ambiguous, that I\n   could not well come with the confidence which is given to\n   other--perhaps more far-sighted--men before my audience, and say,\n   Rely upon it, the States of the Church--the land from Radicofani to\n   Ceperano, from Ravenna to Civita Vecchia, shall and must and will\n   invariably remain to the Popes. Heaven and earth shall pass away\n   before the Roman State shall pass away. I could not do this, because\n   I did not at that time believe it, nor do I now; but am only\n   confident that the Holy See will not be permanently deprived of the\n   conditions necessary for the fulfilment of its mission. Thus the\n   substance of my words was this: Let no one lose faith in the Church\n   if the secular principality of the Pope should disappear for a\n   season, or for ever. It is not essence, but accident; not end, but\n   means; it began late; it was formerly something quite different from\n   what it is now. It justly appears to us indispensable, and as long as\n   the existing order lasts in Europe, it must be maintained at any\n   price; or if it is violently interrupted, it must be restored. But a\n   political settlement of Europe is conceivable in which it would be\n   superfluous, and then it would be an oppressive burden. At the same\n   time I wished to defend Pope Pius IX. and his government against many\n   accusations, and to point out that the inward infirmities and\n   deficiencies which undeniably exist in the country, by which the\n   State has been reduced to so deplorable a condition of weakness and\n   helplessness, were not attributable to him: that, on the contrary, he\n   has shown, both before and since 1848, the best will to reform; and\n   that by him, and under him, much has been really improved.\n\n   The newspaper reports, written down at home from memory, gave but an\n   inaccurate representation of a discourse which did not attempt in the\n   usual way to cut the knot, but which, with buts and ifs, and\n   referring to certain elements in the decision which are generally\n   left out of the calculation, spoke of an uncertain future, and of\n   various possibilities. This was not to be avoided. Any reproduction\n   which was not quite literal must, in spite of the good intentions of\n   the reporter, have given rise to false interpretations. When,\n   therefore, one of the most widely read papers reported the first\n   lecture, without any intentional falsification, but with omissions\n   which altered the sense and the tendency of my words, I immediately\n   proposed to the conductors to print my manuscript; but this offer was\n   declined. In other accounts in the daily press, I was often unable to\n   recognise my ideas; and words were put into my mouth which I had\n   never uttered. And here I will admit that, when I gave the lectures,\n   I did not think that they would be discussed by the press, but\n   expected that, like others of the same kind, they would at most be\n   mentioned in a couple of words, _in futuram oblivionem_. Of the\n   controversy which sprang up at once, in separate works and in\n   newspaper articles, in Germany, France, England, Italy, and even in\n   America, I shall not speak. Much of it I have not read. The writers\n   often did not even ask themselves whether the report which accident\n   put into their hands, and which they carelessly adopted, was at all\n   accurate. But I must refer to an account in one of the most popular\n   English periodicals, because I am there brought into a society to\n   which I do not belong. The author of an article in the July Number of\n   the _Edinburgh Review_ ... appeals to me, misunderstanding the drift\n   of my words, and erroneously believing that I had already published\n   an apology of my orthodoxy.... A sharp attack upon me in the _Dublin\n   Review_ I know only from extracts in English papers; but I can see\n   from the vehemence with which the writer pronounces himself against\n   liberal institutions, that, even after the appearance of this book, I\n   cannot reckon on coming to an understanding with him, ...\n\n   The excitement which was caused by my lectures, or rather by the\n   accounts of them in the papers, had this advantage, that it brought\n   to light, in a way which to many was unexpected, how widely, how\n   deeply, and how firmly the attachment of the people to the See of St\n   Peter is rooted. For the sake of this I was glad to accept all the\n   attacks and animosity which fell on me in consequence. But why, it\n   will be asked--and I have been asked innumerable times--why not cut\n   short misunderstandings by the immediate publication of the lectures,\n   which must, as a whole, have been written beforehand? why wait for\n   five months? For this I had two reasons: first, it was not merely a\n   question of misunderstanding. Much of what I had actually said had\n   made an unpleasant impression in many quarters, especially among our\n   optimists. I should, therefore, with my bare statements, have become\n   involved in an agitating discussion in pamphlets and newspapers, and\n   that was not an attractive prospect. The second reason was this: I\n   expected that the further progress of events in Italy, the\n   irresistible logic of facts, would dispose minds to receive certain\n   truths. I hoped that people would learn by degrees, in the school of\n   events, that it is not enough always to be reckoning with the figures\n   \"revolution,\" \"secret societies,\" \"Mazzinism,\" \"Atheism,\" or to\n   estimate things only by the standard supplied by the \"Jew of Verona,\"\n   but that other factors must be admitted into the calculation; for\n   instance, the condition of the Italian clergy, and its position\n   towards the laity, I wished, therefore, to let a few months go by\n   before I came before the public. Whether I judged rightly, the\n   reception of this book will show.\n\n   I thoroughly understand those who think it censurable that I should\n   have spoken in detail of situations and facts which are gladly\n   ignored, or touched with a light and hasty hand, and that especially\n   at the present crisis. I myself was restrained for ten years by these\n   considerations, in spite of the feeling which urged me to speak on\n   the question of the Roman government, and it required the\n   circumstances I have described, I may almost say, to compel me to\n   speak publicly on the subject. I beg of these persons to weigh the\n   following points. First, when an author openly exposes a state of\n   things already abundantly discussed in the press, if he draws away\n   the necessarily very transparent covering from the gaping wounds\n   which are not on the Church herself, but on an institution nearly\n   connected with her, and whose infirmities she is made to feel, it may\n   fairly be supposed that he does it, in agreement with the example of\n   earlier friends and great men of the Church, only to show the\n   possibility and the necessity of the cure, in order, so far as in him\n   lies, to weaken the reproach that the defenders of the Church see\n   only the mote in the eyes of others, not the beam in their own, and\n   with narrow-hearted prejudice endeavour to soften, or to dissimulate,\n   or to deny every fact which is or which appears unfavourable to their\n   cause. He does it in order that it may be understood that where the\n   powerlessness of men to effect a cure becomes manifest, God\n   interposes in order to sift on His threshing-floor the chaff from\n   the wheat, and to consume it with the fire of the catastrophes which\n   are only His judgments and remedies. Secondly, I could not, as a\n   historian, present the effects without going back to their causes;\n   and it was therefore my duty, as it is that of every religious\n   inquirer and observer, to try to contribute something to the\n   _Theodicee_. He that undertakes to write on such lofty interests,\n   which nearly affect the weal and woe of the Church, cannot avoid\n   examining and displaying the wisdom and justice of God in the conduct\n   of terrestrial events regarding them. The fate which has overtaken\n   the Roman States must above all be considered in the light of a\n   Divine ordinance for the advantage of the Church. Seen by that light,\n   it assumes the character of a trial, which will continue until the\n   object is attained, and the welfare of the Church so far secured.\n\n   It seemed evident to me, that as a new order of things in Europe lies\n   in the design of Providence, the disease, through which for the last\n   half-century the States of the Church unquestionably have passed,\n   might be the transition to a new form. To describe this malady\n   without overlooking or concealing any of the symptoms was, therefore,\n   an undertaking which I could not avoid. The disease has its source in\n   the inward contradiction and discord of the institutions and\n   conditions of the government; for the modern French institutions\n   stand there, without any reconciling qualifications, besides those of\n   the mediaeval hierarchy. Neither of these elements is strong enough to\n   expel the other; and either of them would, if it prevailed alone, be\n   again a form of disease. Yet, in the history of the last few years I\n   recognise symptoms of convalescence, however feeble, obscure, and\n   equivocal its traces may appear. What we behold is not death or\n   hopeless decay, it is a purifying process, painful, consuming,\n   penetrating bone and marrow,--such as God inflicts on His chosen\n   persons and institutions. There is abundance of dross, and time is\n   necessary before the gold can come pure out of the furnace. In the\n   course of this process it may happen that the territorial dominion\n   will be interrupted, that the State may be broken up or pass into\n   other hands; but it will revive, though perhaps in another form, and\n   with a different kind of government. In a word, _sanabilibus\n   laboramus malis_--that is what I wished to show; that, I believe, I\n   have shown. Now, and for the last forty years, the condition of the\n   Roman States is the heel of Achilles of the Catholic Church, the\n   standing reproach for adversaries throughout the world, and a\n   stumbling-block for thousands. Not as though the objections, which\n   are founded on the fact of this transitory disturbance and discord in\n   the social and political sphere, possessed any weight in a\n   theological point of view, but it cannot be denied that they are of\n   incalculable influence on the disposition of the world external to\n   the Church.\n\n   Whenever a state of disease has appeared in the Church, there has\n   been but one method of cure,--that of an awakened, renovated, healthy\n   consciousness and of an enlightened public opinion in the Church.\n   The goodwill of the ecclesiastical rulers and heads has not been able\n   to accomplish the cure, unless sustained by the general sense and\n   conviction of the clergy and of the laity. The healing of the great\n   malady of the sixteenth century, the true internal reformation of the\n   Church, only became possible when people ceased to disguise or to\n   deny the evil, and to pass it by with silence and concealment,--when\n   so powerful and irresistible a public opinion had formed itself in\n   the Church, that its commanding influence could no longer be evaded.\n   At the present day, what we want is the whole truth, not merely the\n   perception that the temporal power of the Pope is required by the\n   Church,--for that is obvious to everybody, at least out of Italy, and\n   everything has been said that can be said about it; but also the\n   knowledge of the conditions under which this power is possible for\n   the future. The history of the Popes is full of instances where their\n   best intentions were not fulfilled, and their strongest resolutions\n   broke down, because the interests of a firmly compacted class\n   resisted like an impenetrable hedge of thorns. Hadrian VI. was fully\n   resolved to set about the reformation in earnest; and yet he achieved\n   virtually nothing, and felt himself, though in possession of supreme\n   power, altogether powerless against the passive resistance of all\n   those who should have been his instruments in the work. Only when\n   public opinion, even in Italy, and in Rome itself, was awakened,\n   purified, and strengthened; when the cry for reform resounded\n   imperatively on every side,--then only was it possible for the Popes\n   to overcome the resistance in the inferior spheres, and gradually,\n   and step by step, to open the way for a more healthy state. May,\n   therefore, a powerful, healthy, unanimous public opinion in Catholic\n   Europe come to the aid of Pius IX.!...\n\n   Concerning another part of this book I have a few words to say. I\n   have given a survey of all the Churches and ecclesiastical\n   communities now existing. The obligation of attempting this presented\n   itself to me, because I had to explain both the universal importance\n   of the Papacy as a power for all the world, and the things which it\n   actually performs. This could not be done fully without exhibiting\n   the internal condition of the Churches which have rejected it, and\n   withdrawn from its influence. It is true that the plan increased\n   under my hands, and I endeavoured to give as clear a picture as\n   possible of the development which has accomplished itself in the\n   separated Churches since the Reformation, and through it, in\n   consequence of the views and principles which had been once for all\n   adopted. I have, therefore, admitted into my description no feature\n   which is not, in my opinion, an effect, a result, however remote, of\n   those principles and doctrines. There is doubtless room for\n   discussion in detail upon this point, and there will unavoidably be a\n   decided opposition to this book, if it should be noticed beyond the\n   limits of the Church to which I belong. I hope that there also the\n   justice will be done me of believing that I was far from having any\n   intention of offending; that I have only said what must be said, if\n   we would go to the bottom of these questions; that I had to do with\n   institutions which, because of the dogmas and principles from which\n   they spring, must, like a tree that is nailed to a wall, remain in\n   one position, however unnatural it may be. I am quite ready to admit\n   that, on the opposite side, the men are often better than the system\n   to which they are, or deem themselves, attached; and that, on the\n   contrary, in the Church the individuals are, on the average, inferior\n   in theory and in practice to the system under which they live....\n\n   The union of the two religions, which would be socially and\n   politically the salvation of Germany and of Europe, is not possible\n   at present; first because the greater, more active, and more\n   influential portion of the German Protestants do not desire it, for\n   political or religious reasons, in any form or under any practicable\n   conditions. It is impossible, secondly, because negotiations\n   concerning the mode and the conditions of union can no longer be\n   carried on. For this, plenipotentiaries on both sides are required;\n   and these only the Catholic Church is able to appoint, by virtue of\n   her ecclesiastical organisation, not the Protestants....\n\n   Nevertheless, theologically, Protestants and Catholics have come\n   nearer each other; for those capital doctrines, those articles with\n   which the Church was to stand or fall, for the sake of which the\n   Reformers declared separation from the Catholic Church to be\n   necessary, are now confuted and given up by Protestant theology, or\n   are retained only nominally, whilst other notions are connected with\n   the words.... Protestant theology is at the present day less hostile,\n   so to speak, than the theologians. For whilst theology has levelled\n   the strongest bulwarks and doctrinal barriers which the Reformation\n   had set up to confirm the separation, the divines, instead of viewing\n   favourably the consequent facilities for union, often labour, on the\n   contrary, to conceal the fact, or to provide new points of\n   difference. Many of them probably agree with Stahl of Berlin, who\n   said, shortly before his death, \"Far from supposing that the breach\n   of the sixteenth century can be healed, we ought, if it had not\n   already occurred, to make it now.\" This, however, will not continue;\n   and a future generation, perhaps that which is even now growing up,\n   will rather adopt the recent declaration of Heinrich Leo, \"In the\n   Roman Catholic Church a process of purification has taken place since\n   Luther's day; and if the Church had been in the days of Luther what\n   the Roman Catholic Church in Germany actually is at present, it would\n   never have occurred to him to assert his opposition so energetically\n   as to bring about a separation.\" Those who think thus will then be\n   the right men and the chosen instruments for the acceptable work of\n   the reconciliation of the Churches, and the true unity of Germany.\n   Upon the day when, on both sides, the conviction shall arise vivid\n   and strong that Christ really desires the unity of His Church, that\n   the division of Christendom, the multiplicity of Churches, is\n   displeasing to God, that he who helps to prolong the situation must\n   answer for it to the Lord,--on that day four-fifths of the\n   traditional polemics of the Protestants against the Church will with\n   one blow be set aside, like chaff and rubbish; for four-fifths\n   consist of misunderstandings, logomachies, and wilful falsifications,\n   or relate to personal, and therefore accidental, things, which are\n   utterly insignificant where only principles and dogmas are at stake.\n\n   On that day, also, much will be changed on the Catholic side.\n   Thenceforward the character of Luther and the Reformers will no more\n   be dragged forward in the pulpit. The clergy, mindful of the saying,\n   _interficite errores, diligite homines_, will always conduct\n   themselves towards members of other Churches in conformity with the\n   rules of charity, and will therefore assume, in all cases where there\n   are no clear proofs to the contrary, the _bona fides_ of opponents.\n   They will never forget that no man is convinced and won over by\n   bitter words and violent attacks, but that every one is rather\n   repelled by them. Warned by the words of the Epistle to the Romans\n   (xiv, 13), they will be more careful than heretofore to give to their\n   separate brethren no scandal, no grounds of accusation against the\n   Church. Accordingly, in popular instruction and in religious life,\n   they will always make the great truths of salvation the centre of all\n   their teaching: they will not treat secondary things in life and\n   doctrine as though they were of the first importance; but, on the\n   contrary, they will keep alive in the people the consciousness that\n   such things are but means to an end, and are only of inferior\n   consequence and subsidiary value.\n\n   Until that day shall dawn upon Germany, it is our duty as Catholics,\n   in the words of Cardinal Diepenbrock, \"to bear the religious\n   separation in a spirit of penance for guilt incurred in common.\" We\n   must acknowledge that here also God has caused much good as well as\n   much evil to proceed from the errors of men, from the contests and\n   passions of the sixteenth century; that the anxiety of the German\n   nation to see the intolerable abuses and scandals in the Church\n   removed was fully justified, and sprang from the better qualities of\n   our people, and from their moral indignation at the desecration and\n   corruption of holy things, which were degraded to selfish and\n   hypocritical purposes.\n\n   We do not refuse to admit that the great separation, and the storms\n   and sufferings connected with it, was an awful judgment upon Catholic\n   Christendom, which clergy and laity had but too well deserved--a\n   judgment which has had an improving and salutary effect. The great\n   conflict of intellects has purified the European atmosphere, has\n   impelled the human mind on to new courses, and has promoted a rich\n   scientific and literary life. Protestant theology, with its restless\n   spirit of inquiry, has gone along by the side of the Catholic,\n   exciting and awakening, warning and vivifying; and every eminent\n   Catholic divine in Germany will gladly admit that he owes much to the\n   writings of Protestant scholars.\n\n   We must also acknowledge that in the Church the rust of abuses and of\n   a mechanical superstition is always forming afresh; that the\n   spiritual in religion is sometimes materialised, and therefore\n   degraded, deformed, and applied to their own loss, by the servants of\n   the Church, through their indolence and want of intelligence, and by\n   the people, through their ignorance. The true spirit of reform most,\n   therefore, never depart from the Church, but must periodically break\n   out with renovating strength, and penetrate the mind and the will of\n   the clergy. In this sense we do not refuse to admit the justice of a\n   call to penance, when it proceeds from those who are not of us,--that\n   is, of a warning carefully to examine our religious life and pastoral\n   conduct, and to remedy what is found defective.\n\n   At the same time it must not be forgotten that the separation did not\n   ensue in consequence of the abuses of the Church. For the duty and\n   necessity of removing these abuses has always been recognised; and\n   only the difficulty of the thing, the not always unjustifiable fear\n   lest the wheat should be pulled up with the tares, prevented for a\n   time the Reformation, which was accomplished in the Church and\n   through her. Separation on account merely of abuses in ecclesiastical\n   life, when the doctrine is the same, is rejected as criminal by the\n   Protestants as well as by us. It is, therefore, for doctrine's sake\n   that the separation occurred; and the general discontent of the\n   people, the weakening of ecclesiastical authority by the existence of\n   abuses, only facilitated the adoption of the new doctrines. But now\n   on one side some of these defects and evils in the life of the Church\n   have disappeared; the others have greatly diminished since the\n   reforming movement; and on the other side, the principal doctrines\n   for which they separated, and on the truth of which, and their\n   necessity for salvation, the right and duty of secession was based,\n   are given up by Protestant science, deprived of their Scriptural\n   basis by exegesis, or at least made very uncertain by the opposition\n   of the most eminent Protestant divines. Meanwhile we live in hopes,\n   comforting ourselves with the conviction that history, or that\n   process of development in Europe which is being accomplished before\n   our eyes, as well in society and politics as in religion, is the\n   powerful ally of the friends of ecclesiastical union; and we hold out\n   our hands to Christians on the other side for a combined war of\n   resistance against the destructive movements of the age.\n\nThere are two circumstances which make us fear that the work will not be\nreceived in the spirit in which it is written, and that its object will\nnot immediately be attained. The first of these is the extraordinary\neffect which was produced by the declaration which the author made on\nthe occasion of the late assembly of the Catholic associations of\nGermany at Munich. He stated simply, what is understood by every\nCatholic out of Italy, and intelligible to every reasonable Protestant,\nthat the freedom of the Church imperatively requires that, in order to\nprotect the Pope from the perils which menace him, particularly in our\nage, he should possess a sovereignty not merely nominal, and that his\nright to his dominions is as good as that of all other legitimate\nsovereigns. In point of fact, this expression of opinion, which occurs\neven in the garbled reports of the lectures, leaves all those questions\non which it is possible for serious and dispassionate men to be divided\nentirely open. It does not determine whether there was any excuse for\nthe disaffection of the Papal subjects; whether the security afforded by\na more extensive dominion is greater than the increased difficulty of\nadministration under the conditions inherited from the French\noccupation; whether an organised system of tribute or domains might be\nsufficient, in conjunction with a more restricted territory; whether the\nactual loss of power is or is not likely to improve a misfortune for\nreligion. The storm of applause with which these words, simply\nexpressing that in which all agree, were received, must have suggested\nto the speaker that his countrymen in general are unprepared to believe\nthat one, who has no other aspiration in his life and his works than the\nadvancement of the Catholic religion, can speak without a reverent awe\nof the temporal government, or can witness without dismay its impending\nfall. They must have persuaded themselves that not only the details, but\nthe substance of his lectures had been entirely misreported, and that\nhis views were as free from novelty as destitute of offence. It is hard\nto believe that such persons will be able to reconcile themselves to the\nfearless and straightforward spirit in which the first of Church\nhistorians discusses the history of his own age.\n\nAnother consideration, almost equally significant with the attitude of\nthe great mass of Catholics, is the silence of the minority who agree\nwith Doellinger. Those earnest Catholics who, in their Italian\npatriotism, insist on the possibility of reconciling the liberty of the\nHoly See with the establishment of an ideal unity, Passaglia, Tosti,\nthe followers of Gioberti, and the disciples of Rosmini, have not\nhesitated to utter openly their honest but most inconceivable\npersuasion. But on the German side of the Alps, where no political\nagitation affects the religious judgment, or drives men into disputes,\nthose eminent thinkers who agree with Doellinger are withheld by various\nconsiderations from publishing their views. Sometimes it is the\nhopelessness of making an impression, sometimes the grave inconvenience\nof withstanding the current of opinion that makes them keep silence; and\ntheir silence leaves those who habitually follow them not only without\nmeans of expressing their views, but often without decided views to\nexpress. The same influences which deprive Doellinger of the open support\nof these natural allies will impede the success of his work, until\nevents have outstripped ideas, and until men awake to the discovery that\nwhat they refused to anticipate or to prepare for, is already\naccomplished.\n\nPiety sometimes gives birth to scruples, and faith to superstition, when\nthey are not directed by wisdom and knowledge. One source of the\ndifficulty of which we are speaking is as much a defect of faith as a\ndefect of knowledge. Just as it is difficult for some Catholics to\nbelieve that the supreme spiritual authority on earth could ever be in\nunworthy hands, so they find it hard to reconcile the reverence due to\nthe Vicar of Christ, and the promises made to him, with the\nacknowledgment of intolerable abuses in his temporal administration. It\nis a comfort to make the best of the case, to draw conclusions from the\nexaggerations, the inventions, and the malice of the accusers against\nthe justice of the accusation, and in favour of the accused. It is a\ntemptation to our weakness and to our consciences to defend the Pope as\nwe would defend ourselves--with the same care and zeal, with the same\nuneasy secret consciousness that there are weak points in the case which\ncan best be concealed by diverting attention from them. What the defence\ngains in energy it loses in sincerity; the cause of the Church, which is\nthe cause of truth, is mixed up and confused with human elements, and\nis injured by a degrading alliance. In this way even piety may lead to\nimmorality, and devotion to the Pope may lead away from God.\n\nThe position of perpetual antagonism to a spirit which we abhor; the\nknowledge that the clamour against the temporal power is, in very many\ninstances, inspired by hatred of the spiritual authority; the\nindignation at the impure motives mixed up with the movement--all these\nthings easily blind Catholics to the fact that our attachment to the\nPope as our spiritual Head, our notion that his civil sovereignty is a\nsafeguard of his freedom, are the real motives of our disposition to\ndeny the truth of the accusations made against his government. It is\nhard to believe that imputations which take the form of insults, and\nwhich strike at the Church through the State, are well founded, and to\ndistinguish the design and the occasion from the facts. It is, perhaps,\nmore than we can expect of men, that, after defending the Pope as a\nsovereign, because he is a pontiff, and adopting against his enemies the\npolicy of unconditional defence, they will consent to adopt a view which\ncorroborates to a great extent the assertions they have combated, and\nimplicitly condemns their tactics. It is natural to oppose one extreme\nby another; and those who avoid both easily appear to be capitulating\nwith error. The effects of this spirit of opposition are not confined to\nthose who are engaged in resisting the No-popery party in England, or\nthe revolution in Italy. The fate of the temporal power hangs neither on\nthe Italian ministry nor on English influence, but on the decision of\nthe Emperor of the French; and the loudest maintainers of the rights of\nthe Holy See are among that party who have been the most zealous\nadversaries of the Imperial system. The French Catholics behold in the\nRoman policy of the emperor a scheme for obtaining over the Church a\npower of which they would be the first victims. Their religious freedom\nis in jeopardy while he has the fate of the Pope in his hands. That\nwhich is elsewhere simply a manifestation of opinion and a moral\ninfluence is in France an active interference and a political power.\nThey alone among Catholic subjects can bring a pressure to bear on him\nwho has had the initiative in the Italian movement. They fear by silence\nto incur a responsibility for criminal acts. For them it is a season for\naction, and the time has not yet come when they can speak with judicial\nimpartiality, or with the freedom of history, or determine how far, in\nthe pursuit of his ambitious ends, Napoleon III. is the instrument of\nProvidence, or how far, without any merit of his own, he is likely to\nfulfil the expectations of those who see in him a new Constantine.\nWhilst they maintain this unequal war, they naturally identify the\nrights of the Church with her interests; and the wrongs of the Pope are\nbefore their eyes so as to eclipse the realities of the Roman\ngovernment. The most vehement and one-sided of those who have dwelt\nexclusively on the crimes of the Revolution and the justice of the Papal\ncause, the Bishop of Orleans for instance, or Count de Montalembert,\nmight without inconsistency, and doubtless would without hesitation,\nsubscribe to almost every word in Doellinger's work; but in the position\nthey have taken they would probably deem such adhesion a great\nrhetorical error, and fatal to the effect of their own writings. There\nis, therefore, an allowance to be made, which is by no means a reproach,\nfor the peculiar situation of the Catholics in France.\n\nWhen Christine of Sweden was observed to gaze long and intently at the\nstatue of Truth in Rome, a court-like prelate observed that this\nadmiration for Truth did her honour, as it was seldom shared by persons\nin her station. \"That,\" said the Queen, \"is because truths are not all\nmade of marble.\" Men are seldom zealous for an idea in which they do not\nperceive some reflection of themselves, in which they have not embarked\nsome portion of their individuality, or which they cannot connect with\nsome subjective purpose of their own. It is often more easy to\nsympathise with a person in whose opposite views we discern a weakness\ncorresponding to our own, than with one who unsympathetically avoids to\ncolour the objectivity of truth, and is guided in his judgment by\nfacts, not by wishes. We endeavoured not many months ago to show how\nremote the theology of Catholic Germany is in its scientific spirit from\nthat of other countries, and how far asunder are science and policy. The\nsame method applied to the events of our own day must be yet more\nstartling, and for a time we can scarcely anticipate that the author of\nthis work will escape an apparent isolation between the reserve of those\nwho share his views, but are not free to speak, and the foregone\nconclusions of most of those who have already spoken. But a book which\ntreats of contemporary events in accordance with the signs of the time,\nnot with the aspirations of men, possesses in time itself an invincible\nauxiliary. When the lesson which this great writer draws from the\nexample of the mediaeval Popes has borne its fruit; when the purpose for\nwhich he has written is attained, and the freedom of the Holy See from\nrevolutionary aggression and arbitrary protection is recovered by the\nheroic determination to abandon that which in the course of events has\nceased to be a basis of independence--he will be the first, but no\nlonger the only, proclaimer of new ideas, and he will not have written\nin vain.\n\nThe Christian religion, as it addresses and adapts itself to all\nmankind, bears towards the varieties of national character a relation of\nwhich there was no example in the religions of antiquity, and which\nheresy repudiates and inevitably seeks to destroy. For heresy, like\npaganism, is national, and dependent both on the particular disposition\nof the people and on the government of the State. It is identified with\ndefinite local conditions, and moulded by national and political\npeculiarities. Catholicity alone is universal in its character and\nmission, and independent of those circumstances by which States are\nestablished, and nations are distinguished from each other. Even Rome\nhad not so far extended her limits, nor so thoroughly subjugated and\namalgamated the races that obeyed her, as to secure the Church from the\nnatural reaction of national spirit against a religion which claimed a\nuniversality beyond even that of the Imperial power. The first and most\nterrible assault of ethnicism was in Persia, where Christianity appeared\nas a Roman, and therefore a foreign and a hostile, system. As the Empire\ngradually declined, and the nationalities, no longer oppressed beneath a\nvigorous central force, began to revive, the heresies, by a natural\naffinity, associated themselves with them. The Donatist schism, in which\nno other country joined, was an attempt of the African people to\nestablish a separate national Church. Later on, the Egyptians adopted\nthe Monophysite heresy as the national faith, which has survived to this\nday in the Coptic Church. In Armenia similar causes produced like\neffects.\n\nIn the twelfth century--not, as is commonly supposed, in the time of\nPhotius and Cerularius, for religious communion continued to subsist\nbetween the Latins and the Greeks at Constantinople till about the time\nof Innocent III., but after the Crusades had embittered the antagonism\nbetween East and West--another great national separation occurred. In\nthe Eastern Empire the communion with Rome was hateful to the two chief\nauthorities. The patriarch was ambitious to extend his own absolute\njurisdiction over the whole Empire, the emperor wished to increase that\npower as the instrument of his own: out of this threefold combination of\ninterests sprang the Byzantine system. It was founded on the\necclesiastical as well as civil despotism of the emperor, and on the\nexclusive pride of the people in its nationality; that is, on those\nthings which are most essentially opposed to the Catholic spirit, and to\nthe nature of a universal Church. In consequence of the schism, the\nsovereign became supreme over the canons of the Church and the laws of\nthe State; and to this imperial papacy the Archbishop of Thessalonica,\nin the beginning of the fifteenth century, justly attributes the ruin\nand degradation of the Empire. Like the Eastern schism, the schism of\nthe West in the fourteenth century arose from the predominance of\nnational interests in the Church: it proceeded from the endeavour to\nconvert the Holy See into a possession of the French people and a\nsubject of the French crown. Again, not long after, the Hussite\nrevolution sprang from the union of a new doctrine with the old\nantipathy of the Bohemians for the Germans, which had begun in times\nwhen the boundaries of Christianity ran between the two nations, and\nwhich led to a strictly national separation, which has not yet exhausted\nits political effects. Though the Reformation had not its origin in\nnational feelings, yet they became a powerful instrument in the hands of\nLuther, and ultimately prevailed over the purely theological elements of\nthe movement.\n\nThe Lutheran system was looked on by the Germans with patriotic pride as\nthe native fruit, and especial achievement of the genius of their\ncountry, and it was adopted out of Germany only by the kindred races of\nScandinavia. In every other land to which it has been transplanted by\nthe migrations of this century, Lutheranism appears as eradicated from\nits congenial soil, loses gradually its distinctive features, and\nbecomes assimilated to the more consolatory system of Geneva. Calvinism\nexhibited from the first no traces of the influence of national\ncharacter, and to this it owes its greater extension; whilst in the\nthird form of Protestantism, the Anglican Church, nationality is the\npredominant characteristic. In whatever country and in whatever form\nProtestantism has prevailed, it has always carried out the principle of\nseparation and local limitation by seeking to subject itself to the\ncivil power, and to confine the Church within the jurisdiction of the\nState. It is dependent not so much on national character as on political\nauthority, and has grafted itself rather on the State than on the\npeople. But the institution which Christ founded in order to collect all\nnations together in one fold under one shepherd, while tolerating and\nrespecting the natural historical distinctions of nations and of States,\nendeavours to reconcile antagonism, and to smooth away barriers between\nthem, instead of estranging them by artificial differences, and erecting\nnew obstacles to their harmony. The Church can neither submit as a\nwhole to the influence of a particular people, nor impose on one the\nfeatures or the habits of another; for she is exalted in her catholicity\nabove the differences of race, and above the claims of political power.\nAt once the most firm and the most flexible institution in the world,\nshe is all things to all nations--educating each in her own spirit,\nwithout violence to its nature, and assimilating it to herself without\nprejudice to the originality of its native character. Whilst she thus\ntransforms them, not by reducing them to a uniform type, but by raising\nthem towards a common elevation, she receives from them services in\nreturn. Each healthy and vigorous nation that is converted is a dynamic\nas well as a numerical increase in the resources of the Church, by\nbringing an accession of new and peculiar qualities, as well as of\nquantity and numbers. So far from seeking sameness, or flourishing only\nin one atmosphere, she is enriched and strengthened by all the varieties\nof national character and intellect. In the mission of the Catholic\nChurch, each nation has its function, which its own position and nature\nindicate and enable it to fulfil. Thus the extinct nations of antiquity\nsurvive in the beneficial action they continue to exert within her, and\nshe still feels and acknowledges the influence of the African or of the\nCappadocian mind.\n\nThe condition of this immunity from the predominant influence of\nnational and political divisions, and of this indifference to the\nattachment of particular States and races,--the security of unity and\nuniversality,--consists in the existence of a single, supreme,\nindependent head. The primacy is the bulwark, or rather the\ncorner-stone, of Catholicism; without it, there would be as many\nchurches as there are nations or States. Not one of those who have\ndenounced the Papacy as a usurpation has ever attempted to show that the\ncondition which its absence necessarily involves is theologically\ndesirable, or that it is the will of God. It remains the most radical\nand conspicuous distinction between the Catholic Church and the sects.\nThose who attempt to do without it are compelled to argue that there is\nno earthly office divinely appointed for the government of the Church,\nand that nobody has received the mission to conduct ecclesiastical\naffairs, and to preserve the divine order in religion. The several local\nchurches may have an earthly ruler, but for the whole Church of Christ\nthere is no such protection. Christ, therefore, is the only head they\nacknowledge, and they must necessarily declare separation, isolation,\nand discord to be a principle and the normal condition of His Church.\nThe rejection of the primacy of St. Peter has driven men on to a\nslippery course, where all the steps are downwards. The Greeks first\nproclaimed that they recognised no Pope, that each patriarch ruled over\na portion of the Church. The Anglicans rejected both Pope and patriarch,\nand admitted no ecclesiastical order higher than the Episcopate. Foreign\nProtestanism refused to tolerate even bishops, or any authority but the\nparish clergy under the supremacy of the ruler of the land. Then the\nsects abolished the local jurisdiction of the parish clergy, and\nretained only preachers. At length the ministry was rejected as an\noffice altogether, and the Quakers made each individual his own prophet,\npriest, and doctor.\n\nThe Papacy, that unique institution, the Crown of the Catholic system,\nexhibits in its history the constant working of that law which is at the\nfoundation of the life of the Church, the law of continuous organic\ndevelopment. It shared the vicissitudes of the Church, and had its part\nin everything which influences the course and mode of her existence. In\nearly times it grew in silence and obscurity, its features were rarely\nand imperfectly distinguishable; but even then the Popes exerted their\nauthority in all directions, and while the wisdom with which it was\nexercised was often questioned, the right itself was undisputed. So long\nas the Roman Empire upheld in its strong framework and kept together the\nChurch, which was confined mostly within its bounds, and checked with\nthe stern discipline of a uniform law the manifestations of national and\nlocal divergence, the interference of the Holy See was less frequently\nrequired, and the reins of Church government did not need to be tightly\ndrawn. When a new order of States emerged from the chaos of the great\nmigration, the Papacy, which alone stood erect amid the ruins of the\nempire, became the centre of a new system and the moderator of a new\ncode. The long contest with the Germanic empire exhausted the political\npower both of the empire and of the Papacy, and the position of the Holy\nSee, in the midst of a multitude of equal States, became more difficult\nand more unfavourable. The Popes were forced to rely on the protection\nof France, their supremacy over the States was at an end, and the\nresistance of the nations commenced. The schism, the opposition of the\ngeneral Councils, the circumstances which plunged the Holy See into the\nintrigues of Italian politics, and at last the Reformation, hastened the\ndecline of that extensive social and political power, the echoes and\nreminiscences of which occasioned disaster and repulse whenever an\nattempt was made to exercise it Ever since the Tridentine age, the Popes\nhave confined themselves more and more exclusively to the religious\ndomain; and here the Holy See is as powerful and as free at the present\nday as at any previous period of its history. The perils and the\ndifficulties which surround it arise from temporal concerns,--from the\nstate of Italy, and from the possessions of the pontifical dominions.\n\nAs the Church advances towards fulness and maturity in her forms,\nbringing forward her exhaustless resources, and calling into existence a\nwealth of new elements,--societies, corporations, and institutions,--so\nis the need more deeply felt for a powerful supreme guide to keep them\nall in health and harmony, to direct them in their various spheres, and\nin their several ways towards the common ends and purposes of all, and\nthus to provide against decay, variance, and confusion. Such an office\nthe Primacy alone can discharge, and the importance of the Papacy\nincreases as the organisation of the Church is more complete. One of its\nmost important but most delicate duties is to act as an independent,\nimpartial, and dispassionate mediator between the churches and the\ngovernments of the different States, and between the conflicting claims\nand contradictory idiosyncrasies of the various nations. Yet, though the\nPapacy is so obviously an essential part of a Church whose mission is to\nall mankind, it is the chosen object of attack both to enemies of\nCatholicism and to discontented Catholics. Serious and learned men\ncomplain of its tyranny, and say that it claims universal dominion, and\nwatches for an opportunity of obtaining it; and yet, in reality, there\nis no power on earth whose action is restricted by more sacred and\nirresistible bonds than that of the Holy See. It is only by the closest\nfidelity to the laws and tradition of the Church that the Popes are able\nto secure the obedience and the confidence of Catholics. Pius VII., who,\nby sweeping away the ancient church of France, and depriving\nthirty-seven protesting bishops of their sees, committed the most\narbitrary act ever done by a Pope, has himself described the rules which\nguided the exercise of his authority:--\n\n   The nature and constitution of the Catholic Church impose on the\n   Pope, who is the head of the Church, certain limits which he cannot\n   transgress.... The Bishops of Rome have never believed that they\n   could tolerate any alteration in those portions of the discipline\n   which are directly ordained by Jesus Christ; or in those which, by\n   their nature, are connected with dogma, or in those which heretics\n   assail in support of their innovations.\n\nThe chief points urged against the ambition of Rome are the claim of the\ndeposing Power, according to the theory that all kinds of power are\nunited in the Church, and the protest against the Peace of Westphalia,\nthe basis of the public law and political order of modern Europe. It is\nenough to cite one of the many authorities which may be cited in\nrefutation of the first objection. Cardinal Antonelli, Prefect of\nPropaganda, states in his letter to the Irish bishops, 1791, that \"the\nSee of Rome has never taught that faith is not to be kept with those of\nanother religion, or that an oath sworn to kings who are separated from\nthe Catholic communion may be broken, or that the Pope is permitted to\ntouch their temporal rights and possessions.\" The Bull in which Boniface\nVIII. set up the theory of the supremacy of the spiritual over the\nsecular power was retracted soon after his death.\n\nThe protest of Innocent X. against the Peace of Westphalia is one of the\nglories of the Papacy. That peace was concluded on an unchristian and\ntyrannical principle, introduced by the Reformation, that the subjects\nmay be compelled to follow the religion of the ruler. This was very\ndifferent in principle and in effect from the intolerance of the ages of\nfaith, when prince and people were members of one religion, and all were\nagreed that no other could be permitted in the State. Every heresy that\narose in the Middle Ages involved revolutionary consequences, and would\ninevitably have overthrown State and society, as well as Church,\nwherever it prevailed. The Albigenses, who provoked the cruel\nlegislation against heretics, and who were exterminated by fire and\nsword, were the Socialists of those days. They assailed the fundamental\ninstitutions of society, marriage, family, and property, and their\ntriumph would have plunged Europe into the barbarism and licence of\npagan times. The principles of the Waldenses and the Lollards were\nlikewise incompatible with European civilisation. In those days the law\nrelating to religion was the same for all. The Pope as well as the king\nwould have lost his crown if he had fallen into heresy. During a\nthousand years, from the fall of Rome to the appearance of Luther, no\nCatholic prince ever made an attempt to introduce a new religion into\nhis dominions, or to abandon the old. But the Reformation taught that\nthis was the supreme duty of princes; whilst Luther declared that in\nmatters of faith the individual is above every authority, and that a\nchild could understand the Scriptures better than Popes or Councils, he\ntaught at the same time, with an inconsistency which he never attempted\nto remove, that it is the duty of the civil power to exterminate popery,\nto set up the Gospel, and to suppress every other religion.\n\nThe result was a despotism such as the world had never seen. It was\nworse than the Byzantine system; for there no attempt was made to change\nthe faith of the people. The Protestant princes exercised an\necclesiastical authority more arbitrary than the Pope had ever\npossessed; for the papal authority can only be used to maintain an\nexisting doctrine, whilst theirs was aggressive and wholly unlimited.\nPossessing the power to command, and to alter in religion, they\nnaturally acquired by degrees a corresponding absolutism in the civil\norder. The consistories, the office by which the sovereign ruled the\nChurch, were the commencement of bureaucratic centralisation. A great\nlawyer of those days says, that after the treaties of Westphalia had\nrecognised the territorial supremacy over religion, the business of\nadministration in the German States increased tenfold. Whilst that\nsystem remained in its integrity, there could be no peaceful\nneighbourhood between Catholics and Protestants. From this point of\nview, the protest of the Pope was entirely justified. So far from having\nbeen made in the spirit of the mediaeval authority, which would have been\nfatal to the work of the Congress, it was never used by any Catholic\nprince to invalidate the treaties. They took advantage of the law in\ntheir own territories to exercise the _jus reformandi_. It was not\npossible for them to tolerate a body which still refused to tolerate the\nCatholic religion by the side of its own, which accordingly eradicated\nit wherever it had the means, and whose theory made the existence of\nevery religion depend on the power and the will of the sovereign. A\nsystem which so resolutely denied that two religions could coexist in\nthe same State, put every attempt at mutual toleration out of the\nquestion. The Reformation was a great movement against the freedom of\nconscience--an effort to subject it to a new authority, the arbitrary\ninitiative of a prince who might differ in religion from all his\nsubjects. The extermination of obstinate Catholics was a matter of\ncourse; Melanchthon insisted that the Anabaptists should be put to\ndeath, and Beza was of opinion that Anti-Trinitarians ought to be\nexecuted, even after recantation. But no Lutheran could complain when\nthe secular arm converted him into a Calvinist. \"Your conscience is in\nerror,\" he would say, \"but under the circumstances you are not only\njustified, but compelled, on my own principles, to act as you do.\"[336]\n\nThe resistance of the Catholic Governments to the progress of a religion\nwhich announced that it would destroy them as soon as it had the power,\nwas an instinct of self-preservation. No Protestant divine denied or\ndisguised the truth that his party sought the destruction of\nCatholicism, and would accomplish it whenever they could. The\nCalvinists, with their usual fearless consistency, held that as civil\nand ecclesiastical power must be in the same hands, no prince had any\nright to govern who did not belong to them. Even in the Low Countries,\nwhere other sects were free, and the notion of unity abandoned, the\nCatholics were oppressed.\n\nThis new and aggressive intolerance infected even Catholic countries,\nwhere there was neither, as in Spain, religious unity to be preserved;\nnor, as in Austria, a menacing danger to be resisted. For in Spain the\npersecution of the Protestants might be defended on the mediaeval\nprinciple of unity, whilst under Ferdinand II. it was provoked in the\nhereditary dominions by the imminent peril which threatened to dethrone\nthe monarch, and to ruin every faithful Catholic. But in France the\nProtestant doctrine that every good subject must follow the religion of\nhis king grew out of the intensity of personal absolutism. At the\nrevocation of the Edict of Nantes, the official argument was the will of\nthe sovereign--an argument which in Germany had reigned so triumphantly\nthat a single town, which had ten times changed masters, changed its\nreligion ten times in a century. Bayle justly reproaches the Catholic\nclergy of France with having permitted, and even approved, a proceeding\nso directly contrary to the spirit of their religion, and to the wishes\nof the Pope. A convert, who wrote a book to prove that Huguenots were in\nconscience bound to obey the royal edict which proscribed their worship,\nmet with applause a hundred years later. This fault of the French clergy\nwas expiated in the blood of their successors.\n\nThe excess of evil led to its gradual cure. In England Protestantism\nlost its vigour after the victory over the Catholic dynasty; religion\nfaded away, and with it that religious zeal which leads to persecution:\nwhen the religious antagonism was no longer kept alive by a political\ncontroversy, the sense of right and the spirit of freedom which belongs\nto the Anglo-Saxon race accomplished the work which indifference had\nbegun. In Germany the vitality of the Lutheran theology expired after it\nhad lasted for about two hundred years. The intellectual contradictions\nand the social consequences of the system had become intolerable to the\nGerman mind. Rationalism had begun to prevail, when Frederick II.\ndeclared that his subjects should work out their salvation in their own\nway. That generation of men, who looked with contempt on religious zeal,\nlooked with horror on religious persecution. The Catholic Church, which\nhad never taught that princes are supreme over the religion of their\nsubjects, could have no difficulty in going along with public opinion\nwhen it disapproved of compulsion in matters of conscience. It was\nnatural that in the new order of things, when Christendom had lost its\nunity, and Protestantism its violence, she should revert to the position\nshe occupied of old, when she admitted other religions to equal rights\nwith herself, and when men like St. Ambrose, St. Martin, and St. Leo\ndeprecated the use of violence against heretics. Nevertheless, as the\npreservation of morality depends on the preservation of faith, both\nalike are in the interest and within the competence of the State. The\nChurch of her own strength is not strong enough to resist the advance of\nheresy and unbelief. Those enemies find an auxiliary in the breast of\nevery man whose weakness and whose passions repel him from a Church\nwhich imposes such onerous duties on her members. But it is neither\npossible to define the conditions without which liberty must be fatal to\nthe State, nor the limits beyond which protection and repression become\ntyrannical, and provoke a reaction more terrible than the indifference\nof the civil power. The events of the last hundred years have tended in\nmost places to mingle Protestants and Catholics together, and to break\ndown the social and political lines of demarcation between them; and\ntime will show the providential design which has brought about this\ngreat change.\n\nThese are the subjects treated in the first two chapters on \"The Church\nand the Nations,\" and on the Papacy in connection with the universality\nof Catholicism, as contrasted with the national and political dependence\nof heresy. The two following chapters pursue the topic farther in a\ngeneral historical retrospect, which increases in interest and\nimportance as it proceeds from the social to the religious purpose and\ninfluence of the Papacy, and from the past to the present time. The\nthird chapter, \"The Churches and Civil Liberty,\" examines the effects of\nProtestantism on civil society. The fourth, entitled \"The Churches\nwithout a Pope,\" considers the actual theological and religious fruits\nof separation from the visible Head of the Church.\n\nThe independence of the Church, through that of her Supreme Pontiff, is\nas nearly connected with political as with religious liberty, since the\necclesiastical system which rejects the Pope logically leads to\narbitrary power. Throughout the north of Europe--in Sweden and Denmark,\nin Mecklenburg and Pomerania, in Prussia, Saxony, and Brunswick--the\npower which the Reformation gave to the State introduced an unmitigated\ndespotism. Every security was removed which protected the people\nagainst the abuse of the sovereign power, and the lower against the\noppression of the upper class. The crown became, sooner or later,\ndespotic; the peasantry, by a long series of enactments, extending to\nthe end of the seventeenth century, was reduced to servitude; the\npopulation grew scanty, and much of the land went out of cultivation.\nAll this is related by the Protestant historians and divines, not in the\ntone of reluctant admission, but with patriotic indignation,\ncommensurate with the horrors of the truth. In all these countries\nLutheran unity subsisted. If Calvinism had ever succeeded in obtaining\nan equal predominance in the Netherlands, the power of the House of\nOrange would have become as despotic as that of the Danish or the\nPrussian sovereigns. But its triumph was impeded by sects, and by the\npresence of a large Catholic minority, destitute indeed of political\nrights or religious freedom, but for that very reason removed from the\nconflicts of parties, and therefore an element of conservatism, and a\nnatural ally of those who resisted the ambition of the Stadtholders. The\nabsence of religious unity baffled their attempts to establish arbitrary\npower on the victory of Calvinism, and upheld, in conjunction with the\nbrilliant policy abroad, a portion of the ancient freedom. In Scotland,\nthe other home of pure Calvinism, where intolerance and religious\ntyranny reached a pitch equalled only among the Puritans in America, the\nperpetual troubles hindered the settlement of a fixed political system,\nand the restoration of order after the union with England stripped the\nPresbyterian system of its exclusive supremacy, and opened the way for\ntolerance and freedom.\n\nAlthough the political spirit of Anglicanism was as despotic as that of\nevery other Protestant system, circumstances prevented its full\ndevelopment. The Catholic Church had bestowed on the English the great\nelements of their political prosperity,--the charter of their liberties,\nthe fusion of the races, and the abolition of villeinage,--that is,\npersonal and general freedom, and national unity. Hence the people were\nso thoroughly impregnated with Catholicism that the Reformation was\nimposed on them by foreign troops in spite of an armed resistance; and\nthe imported manufacture of Geneva remained so strange and foreign to\nthem, that no English divine of the sixteenth century enriched it with a\nsingle original idea. The new Church, unlike those of the Continent, was\nthe result of an endeavour to conciliate the Catholic disposition of the\npeople, by preserving as far as possible the externals to which they\nwere attached; whilst the queen--who was a Protestant rather by policy\nthan by conviction--desired no greater change than was necessary for her\npurpose. But the divines whom she placed at the head of the new Church\nwere strict Calvinists, and differed from the Puritans only in their\nsubmission to the court. The rapidly declining Catholic party accepted\nAnglicanism as the lesser evil; while zealous Protestants deemed that\nthe outward forms ought to correspond to the inward substance, and that\nCalvinistic doctrines required a Calvinistic constitution. Until the end\nof the century there was no Anglican theology; and the attempt to devise\na system in harmony with the peculiar scheme and design of the\ninstitution, began with Hooker. The monarch was absolute master in the\nChurch, which had been established as an instrument of royal influence;\nand the divines acknowledged his right by the theory of passive\nobedience. The consistent section of the Calvinists was won over, for a\ntime, by the share which the gentry obtained in the spoils of the\nChurch, and by the welcome concession of the penal laws against her,\nuntil at last they found that they had in their intolerance been forging\nchains for themselves. One thing alone, which our national jurists had\nrecognised in the fifteenth century as the cause and the sign of our\nsuperiority over foreign States--the exclusion of the Roman code, and\nthe unbroken preservation of the common law--kept England from sinking\nbeneath a despotism as oppressive as that of France or Sweden.\n\nAs the Anglican Church under James and Charles was the bulwark of\narbitrary power, the popular resistance took the form of ecclesiastical\nopposition. The Church continued to be so thoroughly committed to the\nprinciple of unconditional submission to the power from which it derived\nits existence, that James II. could reckon on this servile spirit as a\nmeans of effecting the subversion of the Establishment; and Defoe\nreproached the bishops with having by their flattery led on the king,\nwhom they abandoned in the moment of his need. The Revolution, which\nreduced the royal prerogative, removed the oppressiveness of the royal\nsupremacy. The Established Church was not emancipated from the crown,\nbut the Nonconformists were emancipated from the tyranny of the\nEstablished Church. Protestantism, which in the period of its power\ndragged down by its servility the liberties of the nation, did\nafterwards, in its decay and disorganisation, by the surrender of its\ndogmatic as well as of its political principle, promote their recovery\nand development. It lost its oppressiveness in proportion as it lost its\nstrength, and it ceased to be tyrannical when divines had been forced to\ngive up its fundamental doctrine, and when its unity had been dissolved\nby the sects. The revival of those liberties which, in the Middle Ages,\nhad taken root under the influence of the Church, coincided with the\nprogress of the Protestant sects, and with the decay of the penal laws.\nThe contrast between the political character of those countries in which\nProtestantism integrally prevailed, and that of those in which it was\ndivided against itself, and could neither establish its system nor work\nout its consequences, is as strongly marked as the contrast between the\npolitics of Catholic times and those which were introduced by the\nReformation. The evil which it wrought in its strength was turned to\ngood by its decline.\n\nSuch is the sketch of the effects of the Protestant apostasy in the\npolitical order, considered chiefly in relation to the absence of a\nsupreme ecclesiastical authority independent of political control. It\nwould require far more space to exhibit the positive influence of\nheretical principles on the social foundations of political life; and\nthe picture would not be complete without showing the contrast exhibited\nby Catholic States, and tracing their passage from the mediaeval system\nunder the influence of the reaction against the Reformation. The third\nchapter covers only a portion of this extensive subject; but it shows\nthe action of the new mode of ecclesiastical government upon the civil\norder, and proves that the importance of the Papacy is not confined to\nits religious sphere. It thus prepares the way for the subject discussed\nin the fourth chapter,--the most comprehensive and elaborate in the\nbook.\n\nDr. Doellinger begins his survey of the churches that have renounced the\nPope with those of the Eastern schism. The Patriarch of Constantinople,\nwhose ecclesiastical authority is enormous, and whose opportunities of\nextorting money are so great that he is generally deposed at the end of\ntwo or three years, in order that many may succeed each other in the\nenjoyment of such advantages, serves not as a protection, but as an\ninstrument for the oppression of the Christians. The Greek clergy have\nbeen the chief means by which the Turks have kept down both the Greek\nand the Slavonic population, and the Slavs are by degrees throwing off\ntheir influence. Submission to the civil power is so natural in\ncommunities separated from the Universal Church, that the Greeks look up\nto the Turkish authorities as arbiters in ecclesiastical matters. When\nthere was a dispute between Greeks and Armenians respecting the mixture\nof water with the wine in the chalice, the question was referred for\ndecision to the proper quarter, and the Reis Effendi decided that, wine\nbeing condemned by the Koran, water alone might be used. Yet to this\npusillanimous and degenerate Church belong the future of European\nTurkey, and the inheritance of the sinking power of the Turks. The\nvitality of the dominant race is nearly exhausted, and the\nChristians--on whose pillage they live--exceed them, in increasing\nproportions, in numbers, prosperity, intelligence, and enterprise.\n\nThe Hellenic Church, obeying the general law of schismatical\ncommunities, has exchanged the authority of the patriarch for that of\nthe crown, exercised through a synod, which is appointed on the Russian\nmodel by the Government. The clergy, disabled for religious purposes by\nthe necessity of providing for their families, have little education and\nlittle influence, and have no part in the revival of the Grecian\nintellect. But the people are attached to their ecclesiastical system,\nnot for religion's sake, for infidelity generally accompanies education,\nbut as the defence of their nationality.\n\nIn Russia the Catholic Church is considered heretical because of her\nteaching on the procession of the Holy Ghost, and schismatical in\nconsequence of the claims of the Pope. In the doctrine of purgatory\nthere is no essential difference; and on this point an understanding\ncould easily be arrived at, if none had an interest in widening the\nbreach. In the seventeenth century, the Russian Church retained so much\nindependence that the Metropolitan of Kiev could hold in check the power\nof the Czar, and the clergy were the mediators between the people and\nthe nobles or the crown. This influence was swept away by the despotism\nof Peter the Great; and under Catherine II. the property of the Church\nwas annexed to the crown lands, in order, it was said, to relieve the\nclergy of the burden of administration. Yet even now the Protestant\ndoctrine that the sovereign is supreme in all matters of religion has\nnot penetrated among the Russians. But though the Czar does not possess\nthis authority over the national Church, of which he is a member, the\nProtestant system has conceded it to him in the Baltic provinces. Not\nonly are all children of mixed marriages between Protestants and\nschismatics brought up in the religion of the latter, by which the\ngradual decline of Protestanism is provided for, but conversions to\nProtestanism, even of Jews, Mohammedans, and heathens, are forbidden;\nand, in all questions of doctrine or of liturgy, the last appeal is to\nthe emperor. The religious despotism usually associated with the Russian\nmonarchy subsists only for the Protestants.\n\nThe Russian Church is dumb; the congregation does not sing, the priest\ndoes not preach. The people have no prayer-books, and are therefore\nconfined to the narrow circle of their own religious ideas. Against the\ncloud of superstition which naturally gathers in a religion of\nceremonies, destitute of the means of keeping alive or cultivating the\nreligious sentiments of the people, there is no resource. In spite of\nthe degeneracy of their clergy, which they are unable to feel, the\nRussians cling with patriotic affection to their Church, and identify\nits progress and prosperity with the increase of their empire. As it is\nan exclusively national institution, every war may become a war of\nreligion, and it is the attachment to the Church which creates the\nlonging and the claim to possess the city from which it came. From the\nChurch the empire derives its tendency to expand, and the Czar the hopes\nof that universal dominion which was promised to him by the Synod of\nMoscow in 1619, and for which a prayer was then appointed. The\nschismatical clergy of Eastern Europe are the channel of Russian\ninfluence, the pioneers of Russian aggression. The political dependence\nof the Church corresponds to its political influence; subserviency is\nthe condition of the power it possesses. The certificate of Easter\nconfession and communion is required for every civil act, and is\nconsequently an object of traffic. In like manner, the confessor is\nbound to betray to the police all the secrets of confession which affect\nthe interest of the Government. In this deplorable state of corruption,\nservitude, and decay within, and of threatening hostility to Christian\ncivilisation abroad, the Russian Church pays the penalty of its\nByzantine descent.\n\nThe Established Church and the sects in England furnish few\nopportunities of treating points which would be new to our readers.\nPerhaps the most suggestive portion is the description of the effects of\nProtestantism on the character and condition of the people. The plunder\nand oppression of the poor has everywhere followed the plunder of the\nChurch, which was the guardian and refuge of the poor. The charity of\nthe Catholic clergy aimed not merely at relieving, but at preventing\npoverty. It was their object not only to give alms, but to give to the\nlower orders the means of obtaining a livelihood. The Reformation at\nonce checked alms-giving; so that, Selden says, in places where twenty\npounds a year had been distributed formerly, not a handful of meal was\ngiven away in his time, for the wedded clergy could not afford it. The\nconfiscation of the lands where thousands had tilled the soil under the\nshadow of the monastery or the Church, was followed by a new system of\ncultivation, which deprived the peasants of their homes. The sheep, men\nsaid, were the cause of all the woe; and whole towns were pulled down to\nmake room for them. The prelates of the sixteenth century lament the\ndecline of charity since the Catholic times; and a divine attributed the\ngrowing selfishness and harshness to the doctrine of justification by\nfaith. The alteration in the condition of the poor was followed by\nsevere enactments against vagrancy; and the Protestant legislature,\nafter creating a proletariate, treated it as a crime. The conversion of\nSunday into a Jewish Sabbath cut off the holiday amusements and soured\nthe cheerfulness of the population. Music, singing, and dancing, the\nfavourite relaxation of a contented people, disappeared, and, especially\nafter the war in the Low Countries, drunkenness began to prevail among a\nnation which in earlier times had been reckoned the most sober of\nNorthern Europe. The institution which introduced these changes has\nbecome a State, not a national Church, whose services are more attended\nby the rich than by the poor.\n\nAfter describing the various parties in the Anglican system, the decay\nof its divinity, and the general aversion to theological research,\nDoellinger concludes that its dissolution is a question of time. No State\nChurch can long subsist in modern society which professes the religion\nof the minority. Whilst the want of a definite system of doctrine,\nallowing every clergyman to be the mouthpiece, not of a church, but of a\nparty, drives an increasing portion of the people to join the sects\nwhich have a fixed doctrine and allow less independence to their\npreachers, the great danger which menaces the Church comes from the\nState itself. The progress of dissent and of democracy in the\nlegislature will make the Church more and more entirely dependent on the\nwill of the majority, and will drive the best men from the communion of\na servile establishment. The rise and fortunes of Methodism are related\nwith peculiar predilection by the author, who speaks of John Wesley as\nthe greatest intellect English Protestantism has produced, next to\nBaxter.\n\nThe first characteristic of Scottish Presbyterianism is the absence of a\ntheology. The only considerable divines that have appeared in Scotland\nsince the Reformation, Leighton and Forbes, were prelates of the\nEpiscopal Church. Calvinism was unable to produce a theological\nliterature, in spite of the influence of English writers, of the example\nof Holland, and of the great natural intelligence of the Scots. \"Their\ntheology,\" says a distinguished Lutheran divine, \"possesses no system of\nChristian ethics.\" This Doellinger attributes to the strictness with\nwhich they have held to the doctrine of imputation, which is\nincompatible with any system of moral theology. In other countries it\nwas the same; where that doctrine prevailed, there was no ethical\nsystem, and where ethics were cultivated, the doctrine was abandoned.\nFor a century after Luther, no moral theology was written in Germany.\nThe first who attempted it, Calixtus, gave up the Lutheran doctrine. The\nDutch historians of Calvinism in the Netherlands record, in like manner,\nthat there the dread of a collision with the dogma silenced the teaching\nof ethics both in literature and at the universities. Accordingly, all\nthe great Protestant moralists were opposed to the Protestant doctrine\nof justification. In Scotland the intellectual lethargy of churchmen is\nnot confined to the department of ethics; and Presbyterianism only\nprolongs its existence by suppressing theological writing, and by\nconcealing the contradictions which would otherwise bring down on the\nclergy the contempt of their flocks.\n\nWhilst Scotland has clung to the original dogma of Calvin, at the price\nof complete theological stagnation, the Dutch Church has lost its\nprimitive orthodoxy in the progress of theological learning. Not one of\nthe several schools into which the clergy of the Netherlands are divided\nhas remained faithful to the five articles of the synod of Dortrecht,\nwhich still command so extensive an allegiance in Great Britain and\nAmerica. The conservative party, headed by the statesman and historian,\nGroen van Prinsterer, who holds fast to the theology which is so closely\ninterwoven with the history of his country and with the fortunes of the\nreigning house, and who invokes the aid of the secular arm in support of\npure Calvinism, is not represented at the universities. For all the\nDutch divines know that the system cannot be revived without sacrificing\nthe theological activity by which it has been extinguished. The old\nconfessional writings have lost their authority; and the general synod\nof 1854 decided that, \"as it is impossible to reconcile all opinions and\nwishes, even in the shortest confession, the Church tolerates divergence\nfrom the symbolical books.\" The only unity, says Groen, consists in\nthis, that all the preachers are paid out of the same fund. The bulk of\nthe clergy are Arminians or Socinians. From the spectacle of the Dutch\nChurch, Dr. Doellinger comes to the following result: first, that without\na code of doctrine laid down in authoritative confessions of faith, the\nChurch cannot endure; secondly, that the old confessional writings\ncannot be maintained, and are universally given up; and thirdly, that it\nis impossible to draw up new ones.\n\nFrench Protestantism suffered less from the Revolution than the Catholic\nChurch, and was treated with tenderness, and sometimes with favour. The\ndissolution of Continental Protestantism began in France. Before their\nexpulsion in 1685, the French divines had cast off the yoke of the\nDortrecht articles, and in their exile they afterwards promoted the\ndecline of Calvinism in the Netherlands. The old Calvinistic tradition\nhas never been restored, the works of the early writers are forgotten,\nno new theological literature has arisen, and the influence of Germany\nhas borne no considerable fruit. The evangelical party, or Methodists,\nas they are called, are accused by the rest of being the cause of their\npresent melancholy state. The rationalism of the _indifferens_ generally\nprevails among the clergy, either in the shape of the naturalism of the\neighteenth century (Coquerel), or in the more advanced form of modern\ncriticism, as it is carried out by the faculty of Strasburg, with the\naid of German infidelity. Payment by the State and hatred of Catholicism\nare the only common marks of French Protestant divines. They have no\ndoctrine, no discipline, no symbol, no theology. Nobody can define the\nprinciple or the limits of their community.\n\nThe Calvinism of Switzerland has been ruined in its doctrine by the\nprogress of theology, and in its constitution by the progress of\ndemocracy. In Geneva the Church of Calvin fell in the revolutions of\n1841 and 1846. The symbolical books are abolished; the doctrine is based\non the Bible; but the right of free inquiry is granted to all; the\nruling body consists of laymen. \"The faith of our fathers,\" says Merle\nd'Aubigne, \"counts but a small group of adherents amongst us.\" In the\ncanton of Vaud, where the whole ecclesiastical power was in the hands of\nthe Government, the yoke of the democracy became insupportable, and the\nexcellent writer, Vinet, seceded with 180 ministers out of 250. The\npeople of Berne are among the most bitter enemies of Catholicism in\nEurope. Their fanaticism crushed the Sonderbund; but the recoil drove\nthem towards infidelity, and hastened the decrease of devotion and of\nthe influence of the clergy. None of the German Swiss, and few of the\nFrench, retain in its purity the system of Calvin. The unbelief of the\nclergy lays the Church open to the attacks of a Caesaro-papistic\ndemocracy. A Swiss Protestant divine said recently: \"Only a Church with\na Catholic organisation could have maintained itself without a most\nextraordinary descent of the Holy Spirit against the assaults of\nRationalism.\" \"What we want,\" says another, \"in order to have a free\nChurch, is pastors and flocks; dogs and wolves there are in plenty.\"\n\nIn America it is rare to find people who are openly irreligious. Except\nsome of the Germans, all Protestants generally admit the truth of\nChristianity and the authority of Scripture. But above half of the\nAmerican population belongs to no particular sect, and performs no\nreligious functions. This is the result of the voluntary principle, of\nthe dominion of the sects, and of the absence of an established Church,\nto receive each individual from his birth, to adopt him by baptism, and\nto bring him up in the atmosphere of a religious life. The majority of\nmen will naturally take refuge in indifference and neutrality from the\nconflict of opinions, and will persuade themselves that where there are\nso many competitors, none can be the lawful spouse. Yet there is a\nblessing on everything that is Christian, which can never be entirely\neffaced or converted into a curse. Whatever the imperfections of the\nform in which it exists, the errors mixed up with it, or the degrading\ninfluence of human passion, Christianity never ceases to work\nimmeasurable social good. But the great theological characteristic of\nAmerican Protestantism is the absence of the notion of the Church. The\nprevailing belief is, that in times past there was always a war of\nopinions and of parties, that there never was one unbroken vessel, and\nthat it is necessary, therefore, to put up with fragments, one of which\nis nearly as good as another. Sectarianism, it is vaguely supposed, is\nthe normal condition of religion. Now a sect is, by its very nature,\ninstinctively adverse to a scientific theology; it feels that it is\nshort-lived, without a history, and unconnected with the main stream of\necclesiastical progress, and it is inspired with hatred and with\ncontempt for the past, for its teaching and its writings. Practically,\nsectaries hold that a tradition is the more surely to be rejected the\nolder it is, and the more valuable in proportion to the lateness of its\norigin. As a consequence of the want of roots in the past, and of the\nthirst for novelty, the history of those sects which are not sunk in\nlethargy consists in sudden transitions to opposite extremes. In the\nreligious world ill weeds grow apace; and those communities which strike\nroot, spring up, and extend most rapidly are the least durable and the\nleast respectable. The sects of Europe were transplanted into America:\nbut there the impatience of authority, which is the basis of social and\npolitical life, has produced in religion a variety and a multiplicity,\nof Which Europe has no experience.\n\nWhilst these are the fruits of religious liberty and ecclesiastical\nindependence among a people generally educated, the Danish monarchy\nexhibits unity of faith strictly maintained by keeping the people under\nthe absolute control of the upper class, on whose behalf the Reformation\nwas introduced, and in a state of ignorance corresponding to their\noppression. Care was taken that they should not obtain religious\ninstruction, and in the beginning of the eighteenth century the\ncelebrated Bishop Pontoppidan says, \"an almost heathen blindness\npervades the land.\" About the same time the Norwegian prelates declared,\nin a petition to the King of Denmark: \"If we except a few children of\nGod, there is only this difference between us and our heathen ancestors,\nthat we bear the name of Christians.\" The Danish Church has given no\nsigns of life, and has shown no desire for independence since the\nReformation; and in return for this submissiveness, the Government\nsuppressed every tendency towards dissent. Things were not altered when\nthe tyranny of the nobles gave way to the tyranny of the crown; but when\nthe revolution of 1848 had given the State a democratic basis, its\nconfessional character was abrogated, and whilst Lutheranism was\ndeclared the national religion, conformity was no longer exacted. The\nking is still the head of the Church, and is the only man in Denmark who\nmust be a Lutheran. No form of ecclesiastical government suitable to the\nnew order of things has yet been devised, and the majority prefer to\nremain in the present provisional state, subject to the will of a\nParliament, not one member of which need belong to the Church which it\ngoverns. Among the clergy, those who are not Rationalists follow the\nlead of Grundtvig. During many years this able man has conducted an\nincessant resistance against the progress of unbelief and of the German\ninfluence, and against the Lutheran system, the royal supremacy, and the\nparochial constitution. Not unlike the Tractarians, he desires the\nliberty of establishing a system which shall exclude Lutheranism,\nRationalism, and Erastianism; and he has united in his school nearly all\nwho profess positive Christianity in Denmark. In Copenhagen, out of\n150,000 inhabitants, only 6000 go regularly to church. In Altona, there\nis but one church for 45,000 people. In Schleswig the churches are few\nand empty. \"The great evil,\" says a Schleswig divine, \"is not the\noppression which falls on the German tongue, but the irreligion and\nconsequent demoralisation which Denmark has imported into Schleswig. A\nmoral and religious tone is the exception, not the rule, among the\nDanish clergy.\"\n\nThe theological literature of Sweden consists almost entirely of\ntranslations from the German. The clergy, by renouncing study, have\nescaped Rationalism, and remain faithful to the Lutheran system. The\nking is supreme in spirituals, and the Diet discusses and determines\nreligious questions. The clergy, as one of the estates, has great\npolitical influence, but no ecclesiastical independence. No other\nProtestant clergy possesses equal privileges or less freedom. It is\nusual for the minister after the sermon to read out a number of trivial\nlocal announcements, sometimes half an hour long; and in a late Assembly\nthe majority of the bishops pronounced in favour of retaining this\ncustom, as none but old women and children would come to church for the\nservice alone.\n\nIn no other country in Europe is the strict Lutheran system preached but\nin Sweden. The doctrine is preserved, but religion is dead, and the\nChurch is as silent and as peaceful as the churchyard. The Church is\nrichly endowed; there are great universities, and Swedes are among the\nforemost in almost every branch of science, but no Swedish writer has\never done anything for religious thought. The example of Denmark and its\nRationalist clergy brought home to them the consequences of theological\nstudy. In one place the old system has been preserved, like a frail and\ndelicate curiosity, by excluding the air of scientific inquiry, whilst\nin the other Lutheranism is decomposing under its influence. In Norway,\nwhere the clergy have no political representation, religious liberty was\nestablished in 1844.\n\nThroughout the north of Europe the helpless decline of Protestantism is\nbetrayed by the numerical disproportion of preachers to the people.\nNorway, with a population of 1,500,000, thinly scattered over a very\nlarge territory, has 485 parishes, with an average of 3600 souls apiece.\nBut the clergy are pluralists, and as many as five parishes are often\nunited under a single incumbent. Holstein has only 192 preachers for an\nalmost exclusively Lutheran population of 544,000. In Schleswig many\nparishes have been deserted because they were too poor to maintain a\nclergyman's family. Sometimes there are only two ministers for 13,000\npersons. In the Baltic provinces the proportion is one to 4394. In this\nway the people have to bear the burden of a clergy with families to\nsupport.\n\nThe most brilliant and important part of this chapter is devoted to the\nstate of Protestantism in the author's native country. He speaks with\nthe greatest authority and effect when he comes near home, describes the\nopinions of men who have been his rivals in literature, or his\nadversaries in controversy, and touches on discussions which his own\nwritings have influenced. There is a difference also in the tone. When\nhe speaks of the state of other countries, with which he has made\nhimself acquainted as a traveller, or through the writings of others, he\npreserves the calmness and objectivity of a historian, and adds few\nreflections to the simple description of facts. But in approaching the\nscenes and the thoughts of his own country, the interests and the most\nimmediate occupations of his own life, the familiarity of long\nexperience gives greater confidence, warmth, and vigour to his touch;\nthe historian gives way to the divine, and the narrative sometimes\nslides into theology. Besides the position of the author, the\ndifference of the subject justifies a change in the treatment. The\nexamination of Protestantism in the rest of the world pointed with\nmonotonous uniformity to a single conclusion. Everywhere there was the\nsame spectacle and the same alternative: either religion sacrificed to\nthe advancement of learning, or learning relinquished for the\npreservation of religion. Everywhere the same antagonism between\nintellectual progress and fidelity to the fundamental doctrines of\nProtestantism: either religion has become stark and stagnant in States\nwhich protect unity by the proscription of knowledge, or the progress of\nthought and inquiry has undermined belief in the Protestant system, and\ndriven its professors from one untenable position to another, or the\nascendency of the sectarian spirit has been equally fatal to its\ndogmatic integrity and to its intellectual development. But in the home\nof the Reformation a league has been concluded in our time between\ntheology and religion, and many schools of Protestant divines are\nlabouring, with a vast expenditure of ability and learning, to devise,\nor to restore, with the aid of theological science, a system of positive\nChristianity. Into this great scene of intellectual exertion and\ndoctrinal confusion the leading adversary of Protestantism in Germany\nconducts his readers, not without sympathy for the high aims which\ninspire the movement, but with the almost triumphant security which\nbelongs to a Church possessing an acknowledged authority, a definite\norganisation, and a system brought down by tradition from the apostolic\nage. Passing by the schools of infidelity, which have no bearing on the\ntopic of his work, he addresses himself to the believing Protestantism\nof Germany, and considers its efforts to obtain a position which may\nenable it to resist unbelief without involving submission to the Church.\n\nThe character of Luther separates the German Protestants from those of\nother countries. His was the master-spirit, in whom his contemporaries\nbeheld the incarnation of the genius of their nation. In the strong\nlineaments of his character they recognised, in heroic proportions, the\nreflection of their own; and thus his name has survived, not merely as\nthat of a great man, the mightiest of his age, but as the type of a\nwhole period in the history of the German people, the centre of a new\nworld of ideas, the personification of those religious and ethical\nopinions which the country followed, and whose influence even their\nadversaries could not escape. His writings have long ceased to be\npopular, and are read only as monuments of history; but the memory of\nhis person has not yet grown dim. His name is still a power in his own\ncountry, and from its magic the Protestant doctrine derives a portion of\nits life. In other countries men dislike to be described by the name of\nthe founder of their religious system, but in Germany and Sweden there\nare thousands who are proud of the name of Lutheran.\n\nThe results of his system prevail in the more influential and\nintelligent classes, and penetrate the mass of the modern literature of\nGermany. The Reformation had introduced the notion that Christianity was\na failure, and had brought far more suffering than blessings on mankind;\nand the consequences of that movement were not calculated to impress\neducated men with the belief that things were changed for the better, or\nthat the reformers had achieved the work in which the Apostles were\nunsuccessful. Thus an atmosphere of unbelief and of contempt for\neverything Christian gradually arose, and Paganism appeared more\ncheerful, more human, and more poetical than the repulsive Galilean\ndoctrine of holiness and privation. This spirit still governs the\neducated class. Christianity is abominated both in life and in\nliterature, even under the form of believing Protestantism.\n\nIn Germany theological study and the Lutheran system subsisted for two\ncenturies together. The controversies that arose from time to time\ndeveloped the theory, but brought out by degrees its inward\ncontradictions. The danger of biblical studies was well understood, and\nthe Scriptures were almost universally excluded from the universities in\nthe seventeenth century; but in the middle of the eighteenth Bengel\nrevived the study of the Bible, and the dissolution of the Lutheran\ndoctrine began. The rise of historical learning hastened the process.\nFrederic the Great says of himself, that the notion that the history of\nthe Church is a drama, conducted by rogues and hypocrites, at the\nexpense of the deceived masses, was the real cause of his contempt for\nthe Christian religion. The Lutheran theology taught, that after the\nApostolic age God withdrew from the Church, and abandoned to the devil\nthe office which, according to the Gospel, was reserved for the Holy\nSpirit. This diabolical millennium lasted till the appearance of Luther.\nAs soon, therefore, as the reverence for the symbolical books began to\nwane, the belief in the divine foundation departed with the belief in\nthe divine guidance of the Church, and the root was judged by the stem,\nthe beginning by the continuation. As research went on, unfettered now\nby the authorities of the sixteenth century, the clergy became\nRationalists, and stone after stone of the temple was carried away by\nits own priests. The infidelity which at the same time flourished in\nFrance, did not, on the whole, infect the priesthood. But in Germany it\nwas the divines who destroyed religion, the pastors who impelled their\nflocks to renounce the Christian faith.\n\nIn 1817 the Prussian Union added a new Church to the two original forms\nof Protestantism. But strict Calvinism is nearly extinct in Germany, and\nthe old Lutheran Church itself has almost disappeared. It subsists, not\nin any definite reality, but only in the aspirations of certain divines\nand jurists. The purpose of the union was to bring together, in\nreligious communion, the reigning family of Prussia, which had adopted\nCalvinism in 1613, and the vast Lutheran majority among the people. It\nwas to be, in the words of the king, a merely ritual union, not an\namalgamation of dogmas. In some places there was resistance, which was\nput down by military execution. Some thousands emigrated to America; but\nthe public press applauded the measures, and there was no general\nindignation at their severity. The Lutherans justly perceived that the\nunion would promote religious indifference; but at the accession of the\nlate king there came a change; religious faith was once more sought\nafter, believing professors were appointed in almost all the German\nuniversities, after the example of Prussia; Jena and Giessen alone\ncontinued to be seats of Rationalism. As soon as theology had begun to\nrecover a more religious and Christian character, two very divergent\ntendencies manifested themselves. Among the disciples of Schleiermacher\nand of Neander a school of unionists arose who attempted a conciliatory\nintermediate theology. At the same time a strictly Lutheran theology\nflourished at the universities of Erlangen, Leipzig, Rostock, and\nDorpat, which sought to revive the doctrine of the sixteenth century,\nclothed in the language of the nineteenth. But for men versed in\nScripture theology this was an impossible enterprise, and it was\nabandoned by the divines to a number of parochial clergymen, who are\nrepresented in literature by Rudelbach, and who claim to be the only\nsurviving Protestants whom Luther would acknowledge as his sons and the\nheirs of his spirit.\n\nThe Lutheran divines and scholars formed the new Lutheran party,[337]\nwhose most illustrious lay champion was the celebrated Stahl. They\nprofess the Lutheran doctrine of justification, but reject the notion of\nthe invisible Church and the universal priesthood. Holding to the divine\ninstitution of the offices of the Church, in opposition to the view\nwhich refers them to the congregation, they are led to assume a\nsacrament of orders, and to express opinions on ordination, sacraments,\nand sacrifice, which involve them in the imputation of Puseyism, or even\nof Catholicism. As they remain for the most part in the State Church,\nthere is an open war between their confessional spirit and the\nsyncretism of the union. In 1857 the Evangelical Alliance met at Berlin\nin order to strengthen the unionist principles, and to testify against\nthese Pharisees. Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians--sects\nconnected by nothing but a common hatred of Catholicism--were greeted\nby the union divines as bone of their bone, and welcome allies in the\ncontest with an exclusive Lutheranism and with Rome. The confusion in\nthe minds of the people was increased by this spectacle. The union\nalready implied that the dogma of the Lord's Supper, on which Lutherans\nand Calvinists disagree, was uncertain, and therefore not essential. The\nalliance of so many denominations added baptism to the list of things\nabout which nothing is positively known. The author of this measure was\nBunsen, who was full of the idea of uniting all Protestant sects in a\nunion against the Catholic Church and catholicising tendencies.\n\nFor the last fifteen years there has been an active agitation for the\nimprovement of the Church among the Protestant divines. The first\nquestion that occupies and divides them is that of Church government and\nthe royal Episcopate, which many deem the chief cause of the\necclesiastical decay. The late King of Prussia, a zealous and\nenlightened friend of the Protestant Church, declared that \"the\nterritorial system and the Episcopal authority of the sovereign are of\nsuch a nature that either of them would alone be enough to kill the\nChurch if the Church was mortal,\" and that he longed to be able to\nabdicate his rights into the hands of the bishops. In other countries,\nas in Baden, a new system has been devised, which transfers political\nconstitutionalism to the Church, and makes it a community, not of those\nwho believe in Christ, but, in the words of the Government organ, of\nthose who believe in a moral order. Hopes were entertained that the\nintroduction of Synods would be an improvement, and in 1856 and 1857 a\nbeginning was made at Berlin; but it was found that the existence of\ngreat evils and disorders in the Church, which had been a secret of the\ninitiated, would be published to the world, and that government by\nmajorities, the ecclesiastical democracy which was Bunsen's ideal, would\nsoon destroy every vestige of Christianity.\n\nIn their doctrinal and theological literature resides at the present day\nthe strength and the renown of the Protestants; for a scientific\nProtestant theology exists only in Germany. The German Protestant Church\nis emphatically a Church of theologians; they are its only authority,\nand, through the princes, its supreme rulers. Its founder never really\ndivested himself of the character of a professor, and the Church has\nnever emancipated itself from the lecture-room: it teaches, and then\ndisappears. Its hymns are not real hymns, but versified theological\ndissertations, or sermons in rhyme. Born of the union of princes with\nprofessors, it retains the distinct likeness of both its parents, not\naltogether harmoniously blended; and when it is accused of worldliness,\nof paleness of thought, of being a police institution rather than a\nChurch, that is no more than to say that the child cannot deny its\nparentage.\n\nTheology has become believing in Germany, but it is very far from being\northodox. No writer is true to the literal teaching of the symbolical\nbooks, and for a hundred years the pure doctrine of the sixteenth\ncentury has never been heard. No German divine could submit to the\nauthority of the early articles and formulas without hypocrisy and\nviolence to his conscience, and yet they have nothing else to appeal to.\nThat the doctrine of justification by faith only is the principal\nsubstance of the symbolical writings, the centre of the antagonism\nagainst the Catholic Church, all are agreed. The neo-Lutherans proclaim\nit \"the essence and treasure of the Reformation,\" \"the doctrine of which\nevery man must have a clear and vivid comprehension who would know\nanything of Christianity,\" \"the banner which must be unfurled at least\nonce in every sermon,\" \"the permanent death that gnaws the bones of\nCatholics,\" \"the standard by which the whole of the Gospel must be\ninterpreted, and every obscure passage explained,\" and yet this article\nof a standing or falling Church, on the strength of which Protestants\ncall themselves evangelical, is accepted by scarcely one of their more\neminent divines, even among the Lutherans. The progress of biblical\nstudies is too great to admit of a return to the doctrine which has\nbeen exploded by the advancement of religious learning. Dr. Doellinger\ngives a list (p. 430) of the names of the leading theologians, by all of\nwhom it has been abandoned. Yet it was for the sake of this fundamental\nand essential doctrine that the epistle of St. James was pronounced an\nepistle of straw, that the Augsburg Confession declared it to have been\nthe belief of St Augustine, and that when the author of the Confession\nhad for very shame omitted this falsehood in the published edition, the\npassage was restored after his death. For its sake Luther deliberately\naltered the sense of several passages in the Bible, especially in the\nwritings of St. Paul. To save this doctrine, which was unknown to all\nChristian antiquity, the breach was made with all ecclesiastical\ntradition, and the authority of the dogmatic testimony of the Church in\nevery age was rejected. While the contradiction between the Lutheran\ndoctrine and that of the first centuries was disguised before the laity,\nit was no secret among the Reformers. Melanchthon confessed to Brenz\nthat in the Augsburg Confession he had lied. Luther admitted that his\ntheory was new, and sought in consequence to destroy the authority of\nthe early Fathers and Councils. Calvin declared that the system was\nunknown to tradition. All these men and their disciples, and the whole\nof the Lutheran and Calvinistic theology of the sixteenth and\nseventeenth centuries, professed to find their doctrine of imputation\nlaid down distinctly in the Bible. The whole modern scientific theology\nof the Protestants rejects both the doctrine and the Lutheran exegesis\nof the passages in question. But it is the supreme evangelical\nprinciple, that the Scripture is perfectly clear and sufficient on all\nfundamental points. Yet the point on which this great divergence\nsubsists is a doctrine which is decisive for the existence of the\nChurch, and most important in its practical influence on life. The whole\nedifice of the Protestant Church and theology reposes therefore on two\nprinciples, one material, the other formal--the doctrine of imputation,\nand the sufficiency of the Bible. But the material principle is given up\nby exegesis and by dogmatic theology; and as to the formal principle,\nfor the sufficiency of the Bible, or even for the inspiration of the\nwritings of the disciples of the Apostles, not the shadow of a\nscriptural argument can be adduced. The significance of this great fact\nis beginning to make its way. \"Whilst Rationalism prevailed,\" says a\nfamous Lutheran divine, \"we could impute to its action that our churches\nwere deserted and empty. But now that Christ crucified is everywhere\npreached, and no serious effect is to be observed, it is necessary to\nabandon this mistake, and not to conceal from ourselves that preaching\nis unable to revive religious life.\"\n\nThe religious indifference of the educated classes is the chief security\nfor the existence of the Protestant Church. If they were to take an\ninterest in matters of worship and doctrine, and to inform themselves as\nto the present relation of theological science to the teaching of the\npulpit, the day of discovery and exposure would come, and confidence in\nthe Church would be at an end. The dishonesty of Luther in those very\nthings on which the Reformation depended could not be concealed from\nthem. In Prussia there was a conscientious clergyman who taught his\nparishioners Greek, and then showed them all the passages, especially in\nthe Epistles of St. Paul, which were intentionally altered in the\ntranslation. But one of the Protestant leaders impresses on the clergy\nthe danger of allowing the people to know that which ought to be kept a\nsecret among the learned. At most, he says, it may be necessary to admit\nthat the translation is not perspicuous. The danger of this discovery\ndoes not, however, appear to be immediate, for no book is less familiar\nto the laity than the Bible. \"There is scarcely one Christian family in\na hundred,\" says Tholuck, \"in which the Holy Scriptures are read.\" In\nthe midst of this general downfall of Christianity, in spite of the\ngreat efforts of Protestants, some take refuge in the phrase of an\ninvisible Church, some in a Church of the future. Whilst there exists a\nreal, living, universal Church, with a settled system and means of\nsalvation, the invisible Church is offered in her stead, wrapped up in\nthe swaddling clothes of rhetoric, like the stone which Rhea gave her\nhusband instead of the child. In a novel of Jean Paul, a Swedish\nclergyman is advised in the middle of winter to walk about with a bit of\norange-sugar in his mouth, in order to realise with all his senses the\nsunny climes of the South. It requires as much imagination to realise\nthe Church by taking a \"spiritual league\" into one's mouth.\n\nAnother acknowledgment, that the Church has become estranged from the\npeople, and subsists only as a ruin of a past age, is the widely spread\nhope of a new Pentecost. Eminent theologians speak of it as the only\nconceivable salvation, though there is no such promise in Scripture, no\nexample in history of a similar desire. They rest their only hope in a\nmiracle, such as has not happened since the Apostles, and thereby\nconfess that, in the normal process of religious life by which Christ\nhas guided His Church till now, their cause is lost. A symptom of the\nsame despair is the rise of chiliastic aspirations, and the belief in\nthe approaching end of the world. To this party belongs the present\nminister of public worship and education in Berlin. Shortly before his\nappointment he wrote: \"Both Church and State must perish in their\nearthly forms, that the kingdom of Christ may be set up over all\nnations, that the bride of the Lamb, the perfect community, the new\nJerusalem, may descend from heaven.\" Not long before this was published\nanother Prussian statesman, Bunsen, had warned his Protestant readers to\nturn away from false prophets, who announce the end of the world because\nthey have come to the end of their own wisdom.\n\nIn the midst of this desperate weakness, although Catholics and\nProtestants are so mixed up with each other that toleration must soon be\nuniversal throughout Germany, the thoughts of the Protestants are yet\nnot turned towards the Catholic Church; they still show a bitter\nanimosity against her, and the reproach of Catholic tendencies has for\ntwenty years been the strongest argument against every attempt to\nrevive religion and worship. The attitude of Protestantism towards Rome,\nsays Stahl, is that of the Borghese gladiator. To soften this spirit of\nanimosity the only possible resource is to make it clear to all\nProtestants who still hold to Christianity, what their own internal\ncondition is, and what they have come to by their rejection of the unity\nand the authority which the Catholic Church possesses in the Holy See.\nHaving shown the value of the Papacy by the results which have ensued on\nits rejection, Doellinger proceeds, with the same truth and impartiality,\nto trace the events which have injured the influence and diminished the\nglory and attractiveness of the Holy See, and have converted that which\nshould be the safeguard of its spiritual freedom into a calamity and a\ndishonour in the eyes of mankind. It seems as though he wished to point\nout, as the moral to be learnt from the present condition of the\nreligious world, that there is a coincidence in time and in providential\npurpose between the exhaustion and the despair at which enlightened\nProtestantism has arrived, from the failure of every attempt to organise\na form of church government, to save the people from infidelity, and to\nreconcile theological knowledge with their religious faith,--between\nthis and that great drama which, by destroying the bonds which linked\nthe Church to an untenable system, is preparing the restoration of the\nHoly See to its former independence, and to its just influence over the\nminds of men.\n\nThe Popes, after obtaining a virtual independence under the Byzantine\nsceptre, transferred their allegiance to the revived empire of the West.\nThe line between their authority and that of the emperor in Rome was\nnever clearly drawn. It was a security for the freedom and regularity of\nthe election, which was made by the lay as well as ecclesiastical\ndignitaries of the city, that it should be subject to the imperial\nratification; but the remoteness of the emperors, and the inconvenience\nof delay, caused this rule to be often broken. This prosperous period\ndid not long continue. When the dynasty of Charlemagne came to an end,\nthe Roman clergy had no defence against the nobles, and the Romans did\nall that men could do to ruin the Papacy. There was little remaining of\nthe state which the Popes had formed in conjunction with the emperors.\nIn the middle of the tenth century the Exarchate and the Pentapolis were\nin the power of Berengarius, and Rome in the hands of the Senator\nAlberic. Alberic, understanding that a secular principality could not\nlast long, obtained the election of his son Octavian, who became Pope\nJohn XII. Otho the Great, who had restored the empire, and claimed to\nexercise its old prerogative, deposed the new Pope; and when the Romans\nelected another, sent him also into exile beyond the Alps. For a whole\ncentury after this time there was no trace of freedom of election.\nWithout the emperor, the Popes were in the hands of the Roman factions,\nand dependence on the emperor was better for the Church than dependence\non the nobles. The Popes appointed under the influence of the prelates,\nwho were the ecclesiastical advisers of the Imperial Government, were\npreferable to the nominees of the Roman chiefs, who had no object or\nconsideration but their own ambition, and were inclined to speculate on\nthe worthlessness of their candidates. During the first half of the\neleventh century they recovered their predominance, and the deliverance\nof the Church came once more from Germany. A succession of German Popes,\nnamed by the emperor, opened the way for the permanent reform which is\nassociated with the name of Gregory VII. Up to this period the security\nof the freedom of the Holy See was the protection of the emperor, and\nGregory was the last Pope who asked for the imperial confirmation.\n\nBetween the middle of the ninth century and the middle of the eleventh\nthe greater part of the Roman territory had passed into the hands of\nlaymen. Some portions were possessed by the emperor, some by the great\nItalian families, and the revenues of the Pope were derived from the\ntribute of his vassals. Sylvester II. complains that this was very\nsmall, as the possessions of the Church had been given away for very\nlittle. Besides the tribute, the vassals owed feudal service to the\nPope; but the government was not in his hands, and the imperial\nsuzerainty remained. The great families had obtained from the Popes of\ntheir making such extensive grants that there was little remaining, and\nOtho III. tried to make up for it by a new donation. The loss of the\npatrimonies in Southern Italy established a claim on the Norman\nconquerors, and they became papal vassals for the kingdom of Sicily. But\nthroughout the twelfth century the Popes had no firm basis of their\npower in Italy. They were not always masters of Rome, and there was not\na single provincial town they could reckon on. Seven Popes in a hundred\nyears sought a refuge in France; two remained at Verona. The donation of\nMatilda was disputed by the emperors, and brought no material accession\nof territory, until Innocent III., with his usual energy, secured to the\nRoman Church the south of Tuscany. He was the first Pope who governed a\nconsiderable territory, and became the real founder of the States of the\nChurch. Before him, the Popes had possessions for which they claimed\ntribute and service, but no State that they administered. Innocent\nobtained the submission of Benevento and Romagna. He left the towns to\ngovern themselves by their own laws, demanding only military aid in case\nof need, and a small tribute, which was not always exacted; Viterbo, for\ninstance, paid nothing until the fifteenth century.\n\nThe contest with Frederic II. stripped the Holy See of most of these\nacquisitions. In many cases its civil authority was no longer\nacknowledged; in many it became a mere title of honour, while the real\npower had passed into the hands of the towns or of the nobles, sometimes\ninto those of the bishops. Rudolph of Habsburg restored all that had\nbeen lost, and surrendered the imperial claims. But while the German\ninfluence was suspended, the influence of France prevailed over the\nPapacy; and during the exile at Avignon the Popes were as helpless as if\nthey had possessed not an acre of their own in Italy. It was during\ntheir absence that the Italian Republics fell under the tyrannies, and\ntheir dominions were divided among a swarm of petty princes. The famous\nexpedition of Cardinal Albornoz put an end to these disorders. He\nrecovered the territories of the Church, and became, by the AEgidian\nConstitutions, which survived for ages, the legislator of Romagna. In\n1376 eighty towns rose up in the space of three days, declared\nthemselves free, or recalled the princes whom Albornoz had expelled.\nBefore they could be reduced, the schism broke out, and the Church\nlearnt the consequences of the decline of the empire, and the\ndisappearance of its advocacy and protectorate over the Holy See.\nBoniface IX. sold to the republics and the princes, for a sum of money\nand an annual tribute, the ratification of the rights which they had\nseized.\n\nThe first great epoch in the history of the temporal power after the\nschism is the election of Eugenius IV. He swore to observe a statute\nwhich had been drawn up in conclave, by which all vassals and officers\nof State were to swear allegiance to the College of Cardinals in\nconjunction with the Pope. As he also undertook to abandon to the\ncardinals half the revenue, he shared in fact his authority with them.\nThis was a new form of government, and a great restriction of the papal\npower; but it did not long endure.\n\nThe centrifugal tendency, which broke up Italy into small\nprincipalities, had long prevailed, when at last the Popes gave way to\nit. The first was Sixtus IV., who made one of his nephews lord of Imola,\nand another of Sinigaglia. Alexander VI. subdued all the princes in the\nStates of the Church except the Duke of Montefeltro, and intended to\nmake the whole an hereditary monarchy for his son. But Julius II.\nrecovered all these conquests for the Church, added new ones to them,\nand thus became, after Innocent III. and Albornoz, the third founder of\nthe Roman State. The age which beheld this restoration was marked in\nalmost every country by the establishment of political unity on the\nruins of the mediaeval independence, and of monarchical absolutism at\nthe expense of mediaeval freedom. Both of these tendencies asserted\nthemselves in the States of the Church. The liberties of the towns were\ngradually destroyed. This was accomplished by Clement VII. in Ancona, in\n1532; by Paul III. in Perugia, in 1540. Ravenna, Faenza, Jesi had, under\nvarious pretexts, undergone the same fate. By the middle of the\nsixteenth century all resistance was subdued. In opposition, however, to\nthis centralising policy, the nepotism introduced by Sixtus IV. led to\ndismemberment. Paul III. gave Parma and Piacenza to his son Pier Luigi\nFarnese, and the duchy was lost to the Holy See for good. Paul IV. made\na similar attempt in favour of his nephew Caraffa, but he was put to\ndeath under Pius IV.; and this species of nepotism, which subsisted at\nthe expense of the papal territory, came to an end. Pius V. forbade,\nunder pain of excommunication, to invest any one with a possession of\nthe Holy See, and this law was extended even to temporary concessions.\n\nIn the eighteenth century a time came when the temporal power was a\nsource of weakness, and a weapon by which the courts compelled the Pope\nto consent to measures he would otherwise never have approved. It was\nthus that the suppression of the Jesuits was obtained from Clement XIV.\nUnder his successors the world had an opportunity of comparing the times\nwhen Popes like Alexander III. or Innocent IV. governed the Church from\ntheir exile, and now, when men of the greatest piety and\nconscientiousness virtually postponed their duty as head of the Church\nto their rights as temporal sovereigns, and, like the senators of old,\nawaited the Gauls upon their throne. There is a lesson not to be\nforgotten in the contrast between the policy and the fate of the great\nmediaeval pontiffs, who preserved their liberty by abandoning their\ndominions, and that of Pius VI. and Pius VII., who preferred captivity\nto flight.\n\nThe nepotism of Urban VIII. brought on the war of Castro, and in its\ntrain increase of debt, of taxes, impoverishment of the State, and the\nodious union of spiritual with temporal arms, which became a permanent\ncalamity for the Holy See. This attachment to the interest of their\nfamilies threw great discredit on the Popes, who were dishonoured by the\nfaults, the crimes, and the punishment of their relatives. But since the\ndeath of Alexander VIII., in 1691, even that later form of nepotism\nwhich aimed at wealth only, not at political power, came to an end, and\nhas never reappeared except in the case of the Braschi. The nepotism of\nthe cardinals and prelates has survived that of the Popes. If the\nstatute of Eugenius IV. had remained in force, the College of Cardinals\nwould have formed a wholesome restraint in the temporal government, and\nthe favouritism of the papal relations would have been prevented. But\nthe Popes acted with the absolute power which was in the spirit of the\nmonarchies of that age. When Paul IV. announced to the Sacred College\nthat he had stripped the house of Colonna of its possessions to enrich\nhis nephew, and that he was at war with Spain, they listened in silence,\nand have been passive ever since. No European sovereignty enjoyed so\narbitrary an authority. Under Julius II. the towns retained considerable\nprivileges, and looked on their annexation to the Papal State as a\ndeliverance from their former oppressors. Machiavelli and Guicciardini\nsay that the Popes required neither to defend nor to administer their\ndominions, and that the people were content in the enjoyment of their\nautonomy. In the course of the sixteenth century the administration was\ngradually centralised in Rome, and placed in the hands of ecclesiastics.\nBefore 1550 the governors were ordinarily laymen, but the towns\nthemselves preferred to be governed by prelates. By the close of the\ncentury the independence of the corporations had disappeared; but the\ncentralisation, though complete, was not vigorous, and practically the\ntowns and the barons, though not free, were not oppressed.\n\nThe modern system of government in the Roman States originated with\nSixtus V. He introduced stability and regularity in the administration,\nand checked the growth of nepotism, favouritism, and arbitrary power, by\nthe creation of permanent congregations. In connection with this measure\nthe prelates became the upper class of official persons in the State,\nand were always expected to be men of fortune. A great burden for the\ncountry was the increase of offices, which were created only to be sold.\nNo important duties and no fixed salary were attached to them, and the\nincumbent had to rely on fees and extortion. In the year 1470 there were\n650 places of this kind. In eighty years they had increased to 3500. The\ntheory was, that the money raised by the sale of places saved the people\nfrom the imposition of new taxes. Innocent XII., in 1693, put an end to\nthis traffic; but it had continued so long that the ill-effects\nsurvived.\n\nThere was a great contrast between the ecclesiastical administration,\nwhich exhibited a dignified stability, resting on fixed rules and\nancient traditions, and the civil government, which was exposed to\ncontinual fluctuation by the change of persons, of measures, and of\nsystems; for few Popes continued the plans of their predecessors. The\nnew Pontiff commenced his reign generally with a profound sense of the\nabuses and of the discontent which prevailed before his elevation, and\nnaturally sought to obtain favour and improvement by opposite measures.\nIn the cultivation of the Roman Campagna, for instance, it was observed\nthat each Pope followed a different system, so that little was\naccomplished. The persons were almost always changed by the new Pope, so\nthat great offices rarely remained long in the same hands. The Popes\nthemselves were seldom versed in affairs of State, and therefore\nrequired the assistance of statesmen of long experience. In the\neleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries, when the election was free\nfrom outward influence, men were generally chosen who had held under one\nor two Popes the highest office of state,--Gregory VII., Urban II.,\nGelasius II., Lucius II., Alexander III., Gregory VIII., Gregory IX.,\nAlexander IV. But in modern times it has been the rule that the\nSecretary of State should not be elected, and that the new Pope should\ndismiss the heads of the administration. Clement IX. was the first who\ngave up this practice, and retained almost all those who had been\nemployed under his predecessor.\n\nThe burdens of the State increased far beyond its resources from the aid\nwhich the Popes gave to the Catholic Powers, especially in the Turkish\nwars. At the beginning of the seventeenth century the debt amounted to\n12,242,620 _scudi_, and the interest absorbed three-fourths of the whole\nincome. In 1655 it had risen to 48,000,000 _scudi_. The financial\nadministration was secret, free from the control of public accounts, and\nthe _Tesoriere_, being necessarily a cardinal, was irresponsible. There\nwas no industry in the towns; they remained for the most part small and\npoor; almost all articles of common use were imported, and the country\nhad little to give in exchange. All the interest of the public debt went\nto foreign creditors. As early as 1595 the discontent was very great,\nand so many emigrated, in order to escape the heavy burdens, that\nCardinal Sacchetti said, in 1664, that the population was reduced by\none-half. In the year 1740 the president De Brosses found the Roman\nGovernment the most defective but the mildest in Europe. Becattini, in\nhis panegyrical biography of Pius VI., declares that it was the worst\nafter that of Turkey. There were none of those limitations which in\nother countries restrained the power of the monarch, no fundamental\nlaws, no coronation oath, no binding decrees of predecessors, no\nprovincial estates, no powerful corporations. But, in reality, this\nunlimited absolutism was softened by custom, and by great indulgence\ntowards individuals.\n\nWhen Consalvi adopted the French institutions, he did not understand\nthat an absolute government is intolerable, and must sink under the\nweight of its responsibility, unless it recognises the restraint of\ncustom and tradition, and of subordinate, but not dependent forces. The\nunity and uniformity he introduced were destructive. He restored none\nof the liberties of the towns, and confided the administration to\necclesiastics superficially acquainted with law, and without knowledge\nof politics or of public economy. In the ecclesiastical States of\nGermany, the civil and religious departments were separate; and it is as\nwrong to say that the double position of the head must repeat itself\nthroughout the administration, as to say that a king, because he is the\nhead of the army as well as of the civil government, ought to mix the\ntwo spheres throughout the State. It would, in reality, be perfectly\npossible to separate the political and ecclesiastical authorities.\n\nLeo XII. attempted to satisfy the _Zelanti_, the adversaries of\nConsalvi, by restoring the old system. He abolished the provincial\nCouncils, revived the Inquisition, and subjected official honesty and\npublic morality to a strict espionage. Leo saw the error of Consalvi,\nbut mistook the remedy; and his government was the most unpopular that\nhad been seen for a century. Where the laity are excluded from the\nhigher offices, and the clergy enjoy the monopoly of them, that moral\npower which modern bureaucracy derives from the corporate spirit, and\nthe feelings of honour which it inspires, cannot subsist. One class\nbecomes demoralised by its privileged position, the other by its limited\nprospects and insufficient pay. Leo tried to control them by the\n_congregazione di vigilanze_, which received and examined all charges\nagainst official persons; but it was suppressed by his successor.\n\nThe famous Memorandum of the Powers, 31st May 1831, recommended the\nadmission of the laity to all secular offices, the restoration of the\nprovincial Councils, and the introduction of elective communal Councils\nwith the power of local government; and finally, a security against the\nchanges incident to an elective sovereignty. The historian Coppi, who\nwas charged to draw up a plan of reform in reply to these demands,\nrelates that the Pope and the majority of the cardinals rejected every\nserious change, and were resolved to uphold the old principles, and to\nconcede nothing to the lay party, \"because, if anything was voluntarily\nconceded, there would be no right of recalling it afterwards.\" Two\nthings in particular it was determined not to grant--elective Councils\nin the towns and provinces, and a lay Council of State beside the Sacred\nCollege. In a general way, vague reforms were promised; but the promise\nwas not redeemed. Austria would not tolerate any liberal concessions in\nItaly which were in contradiction with her own system and her own\ninterests; thus all Italian aspirations for reforms were concentrated in\nthe wish to get rid of the foreign yoke, and Austria never succeeded in\nforming a party amongst the Italians favourable to her power. Yet\nGregory XVI. knew that great changes were needed. In 1843 he said:--\n\n   The civil administration requires a great reform. I was too old when\n   I was elected; I did not expect to live so long, and had not the\n   courage to begin the undertaking. For whoever begins, must accomplish\n   it. I have now only a few more years to live; perhaps only a few\n   days. After me they will choose a young Pope, whose mission it will\n   be to perform the act, without which it is impossible to go on.\n\nThe Austrian occupation caused the Roman Government to be identified\nwith the foreign supremacy, and transferred to it the hatred of the\npatriots. The disaffection of the subjects of the Pope had deeper\nmotives. Except the clergy, that overshadows all, there are no distinct\norders in the society of the Roman State; no country nobility, no\nwealthy class of peasant proprietors; nothing but the population of the\ntowns, and a degenerate class of patricians. These were generally\nhostile to the ecclesiastical system. The offices are so distributed,\nthat the clergy govern, and the laity are their instruments. In the\nprincipal departments, no amount of services or ability could raise a\nlayman above a certain level, beyond which younger and less competent\necclesiastics were promoted over his head. This subordination, which led\nto a regular dependence of the lay officials on the prelates, drove the\nbest men away from the service of the State, and disposed the rest to\nlong for a government which should throw open to them the higher prizes\nof their career. Even the country people, who were never tainted with\nthe ideas of the secret societies, were not always well affected.\n\nIt is more difficult for a priest than for a layman to put aside his\nprivate views and feelings in the administration of justice. He is the\nservant and herald of grace, of forgiveness, of indulgence, and easily\nforgets that in human concerns the law is inexorable, that favour to one\nis often injury to many or to all, and that he has no right to place his\nown will above the law. He is still more disqualified for the direction\nof the police, which, in an absolute State and in troubled times, uses\nits unlimited power without reference to Christian ideas, leaves\nunpunished acts which are grievous sins, and punishes others which in a\nreligious point of view are innocent. It is hard for the people to\ndistinguish clearly the priestly character from the action of its bearer\nin the administration of police. The same indifference to the strict\nletter of the law, the same confusion between breaches of divine and of\nhuman ordinances, led to a practice of arbitrary imprisonment, which\ncontrasts painfully with the natural gentleness of a priestly\ngovernment. Hundreds of persons were cast into prison without a trial or\neven an examination; only on suspicion, and kept there more than a year\nfor greater security.\n\nThe immunities of the clergy were as unpopular as their power. The laws\nand decrees of the Pope as a temporal sovereign were not held to be\nbinding on them unless it was expressly said, or was clear from the\ncontext, that they were given also in his character of Head of the\nChurch. Ecclesiastics were tried before their own tribunals, and had the\nright to be more lightly punished than laymen for the same delinquency.\nThose events in the life of Achilli, which came out at his trial, had\nnot only brought down on him no severe punishment, but did not stand in\nthe way of his promotion. With all these privileges, the bulk of the\nRoman clergy had little to do; little was expected of them, and their\ninstruction was extremely deficient.\n\nAt the end of the pontificate of Gregory XVI. the demand for reforms was\nloud and universal, and men began to perceive that the defects of the\ncivil government were undermining the religious attachment of the\npeople. The conclave which raised Pius IX. to the Papal throne was the\nshortest that had occurred for near three hundred years. The necessity\nof choosing a Pontiff disposed to understand and to satisfy the pressing\nrequirements of the time, made it important to hasten matters in order\nto escape the interference of Austria. It was expected that Cardinal\nGizzi or Cardinal Mastai would be elected. The latter had been pointed\nout by Gregory XVI. as his fittest successor, and he made Gizzi\nSecretary of State. The first measure of the new reign, the amnesty,\nwhich, as Metternich said, threw open the doors of the house to the\nprofessional robbers, was taken not so much as an act of policy, as\nbecause the Pope was resolved to undo an accumulation of injustice. The\nreforms which followed soon made Pius the most popular of Italian\nprinces, and all Catholics rejoiced that the reconciliation of the\nPapacy with modern freedom was at length accomplished, and that the\nshadow which had fallen on the priesthood throughout the world was\nremoved with the abuses in the Roman Government. The Constitution was,\nperhaps, an inevitable though a fatal necessity. \"The Holy Father must\nfall,\" said his minister, \"but at least he will fall with honour.\" The\npreliminary conditions of constitutional life were wanting--habits of\nself-government in the towns and provinces, security from the vexations\nof the police, separation of spiritual and temporal jurisdiction. It\ncould not be but that the existence of an elective chamber must give to\nthe lay element a preponderance in the State, whilst in the\nadministration the contrary position was maintained. There could be no\npeaceful solution of this contradiction, and it is strange that the\ncardinals, who were unanimously in favour of the statute, should not\nhave seen that it would lead to the destruction of the privileges of the\nclergy. But in the allocution of 20th April 1849, the Pope declared that\nhe had never intended to alter the character of his government; so that\nhe must have thought the old system of administration by ecclesiastics\ncompatible with the working of the new Constitution. At his return from\nexile all his advisers were in favour of abrogating all the concessions\nof the first years of his reign. Balbo and Rosmini visited him at Gaeta,\nto plead for the Constitution, but they obtained nothing. Pius IX. was\npersuaded that every concession would be a weapon in the hands of the\nRadicals. A lay _consulta_ gave to the laity a share of the supreme\ngovernment; but the chief offices and the last decision remained, as\nbefore, in the hands of the prelates. Municipal reforms were promised.\nIn general the old defects continued, and the old discontent was not\nconciliated.\n\nIt is manifest that Constitutionalism, as it is ordinarily understood,\nis not a system which can be applied to the States of the Church. It\ncould not be tolerated that a warlike faction, by refusing supplies,\nshould compel the Pope to go to war with a Christian nation, as they\nsought to compel him to declare war against Austria in 1848. His\nsovereignty must be real, not merely nominal. It makes no difference\nwhether he is in the power of a foreign State or of a parliamentary\nmajority. But real sovereignty is compatible with a participation of the\npeople in legislation, the autonomy of corporations, a moderate freedom\nof the press, and the separation of religion and police.\n\nRecent events would induce one to suppose that the enormous power of the\npress and of public opinion, which it forms and reflects, is not\nunderstood in Rome. In 1856 the Inquisitor at Ancona issued an edict,\nthreatening with the heaviest censures all who should omit to denounce\nthe religious or ecclesiastical faults of their neighbours, relatives,\nor superiors; and in defiance of the general indignation, and of the\ndespondency of those who, for the sake of religion, desired reforms in\nthe States of the Church, the _Civilta Cattolica_ declared that the\nInquisitor had done his duty. Such cases as this, and those of Achilli\nand Mortara, weighed more heavily in the scale in which the Roman State\nis weighed than a lost battle. Without discussing the cases themselves,\nit is clear what their influence has been on public opinion, with which\nit is more important at the present day to treat than with the\ngovernments which depend on it. This branch of diplomacy has been\nunfortunately neglected, and hence the Roman Government cannot rely on\nlay support.\n\nAfter describing the evils and disorders of the State, which the Pope so\ndeeply felt that he put his own existence in peril, and inflamed half of\nEurope with the spirit of radical change in the attempt to remove them,\nDr. Doellinger contrasts, with the gloomy picture of decay and failure,\nthe character of the Pontiff who attempted the great work of reform.\n\n   Nevertheless, the administration of Pius IX. is wise, benevolent,\n   indulgent, thrifty, attentive to useful institutions and\n   improvements. All that proceeds from Pius IX. personally is worthy of\n   a head of the Church--elevated, liberal in the best sense of the\n   term. No sovereign spends less on his court and his own private\n   wants. If all thought and acted as he does, his would be a model\n   State. Both the French and the English envoys affirm that the\n   financial administration had improved, that the value of the land was\n   increasing, agriculture flourishing, and that many symptoms of\n   progress might be observed. Whatever can be expected of a monarch\n   full of affection for his people, and seeking his sole recreation in\n   works of beneficence, Pius richly performs. _Pertransiit\n   benefaciendo_,--words used of one far greater,--are simply the truth\n   applied to him. In him we can clearly perceive how the Papacy, even\n   as a temporal state, might, so far as the character of the prince is\n   concerned, through judicious elections, be the most admirable of\n   human institutions. A man in the prime of life, after an\n   irreproachable youth and a conscientious discharge of Episcopal\n   duties, is elevated to the highest dignity and to sovereign power. He\n   knows nothing of expensive amusements; he has no other passion but\n   that of doing good, no other ambition but to be beloved by his\n   subjects. His day is divided between prayer and the labours of\n   government; his relaxation is a walk in the garden, a visit to a\n   church, a prison, or a charitable institution. Free from personal\n   desires and from terrestrial bonds, he has no relatives, no\n   favourites to provide for. For him the rights and powers of his\n   office exist only for the sake of its duties.... Grievously outraged,\n   injured, rewarded with ingratitude, he has never harboured a thought\n   of revenge, never committed an act of severity, but ever forgiven and\n   ever pardoned. The cup of sweetness and of bitterness, the cup of\n   human favour and of human aversion, he has not only tasted, but\n   emptied to the dregs; he heard them cry \"Hosannah!\" and soon after\n   \"Crucifige!\" The man of his confidence, the first intellectual power\n   of his nation, fell beneath the murderer's knife; the bullet of an\n   insurgent struck down the friend by his side. And yet no feeling of\n   hatred, no breath of anger could ever obscure, even for a moment, the\n   spotless mirror of his soul. Untouched by human folly, unmoved by\n   human malice, he proceeds with a firm and regular step on his way,\n   like the stars of heaven.\n\n   Such I have seen the action of this Pope in Rome, such it has been\n   described to me by all, whether near him or afar; and if he now seems\n   to be appointed to pass through all the painful and discouraging\n   experience which can befall a monarch, and to continue to the end the\n   course of a prolonged martyrdom, he resembles in this, as in so many\n   other things, the sixteenth Louis; or rather; to go up higher, he\n   knows that the disciple is not above the Master, and that the pastor\n   of a church, whose Lord and Founder died upon the cross, cannot\n   wonder and cannot refuse that the cross should be laid also upon him\n   (pp. 624-627).\n\nIt is a common opinion, that the Pope, as a sovereign, is bound by the\ncommon law to the forms and ideas of the Middle Ages; and that in\nconsequence of the progress of society, of the difference between the\nthirteenth century and the nineteenth, there is an irreconcilable\ndiscord between the Papacy and the necessities of civil government. All\nCatholics are bound to oppose this opinion. Only that which is of Divine\ninstitution is unchangeable through all time. But the sovereignty of the\nPopes is extremely elastic, and has already gone through many forms. No\ncontrast can be stronger than that between the use which the Popes made\nof their power in the thirteenth or the fifteenth century, and the\nsystem of Consalvi. There is no reason, therefore, to doubt, that it\nwill now, after a violent interruption, assume the form best adapted to\nthe character of the age and the requirements of the Italian people.\nThere is nothing chimerical in the vision of a new order of things, in\nwhich the election shall fall on men in the prime of their years and\ntheir strength; in which the people shall be reconciled to their\ngovernment by free institutions and a share in the conduct of their own\nconcerns, and the upper classes satisfied by the opening of a suitable\ncareer in public affairs. Justice publicly and speedily administered\nwould obtain the confidence of the people; the public service would be\nsustained by an honourable _esprit de corps_; the chasm between laity\nand priesthood would be closed by equality in rights and duties; the\npolice would not rely on the help of religion, and religion would no\nlonger drag itself along on the crutches of the police. The integrity of\nthe Papal States would be under the joint guardianship of the Powers,\nwho have guaranteed even the dominions of the Sultan; and the Pope would\nhave no enemies to fear, and his subjects would be delivered from the\nburden of military service and of a military budget.\n\nReligious liberty is not, as the enemies of the Holy See declare, and\nsome even of its friends believe, an insurmountable difficulty. Events\noften cut the knots which appear insoluble to theory. Attempts at\nproselytising have not hitherto succeeded among the subjects of the\nPope; but if it had been otherwise, would it have been possible for the\nInquisition to proceed against a Protestant? The agitation that must\nhave ensued would be a welcome opportunity to put an end to what remains\nof the temporal power. It is true that the advance of Protestantism in\nItaly would raise up a barrier between the Pope and his subjects; but no\nsuch danger is to be apprehended. At the time when the doctrines of the\nReformation exercised an almost magical power over mankind, they never\ntook root in Italy beyond a few men of letters; and now that their power\nof attraction and expansion has long been exhausted, neither Sardinian\npolicy nor English gold will succeed in seducing the Italians to them.\n\nThe present position of helpless and humiliating dependence will not\nlong endure. The determination of the Piedmontese Government to annex\nRome is not more certain than the determination of the Emperor Napoleon\nto abrogate the temporal power. Pius IX. would enjoy greater security in\nTurkey than in the hands of a State which combines the tyranny of the\nConvention, the impudent sophistry of a government of advocates, and the\nruthless brutality of military despotism. Rather than trust to Piedmont,\nmay Pius IX. remember the example of his greatest predecessors, who,\nrelying on the spiritual might of the Papacy, sought beyond the Alps the\nfreedom which Italy denied to them. The Papacy has beheld the rise and\nthe destruction of many thrones, and will assuredly outlive the kingdom\nof Italy, and other monarchies besides. It can afford to wait; _patiens\nquia aeternus_. The Romans need the Pope more than the Pope needs Rome.\nAbove the Catacombs, among the Basilicas, beside the Vatican, there is\nno place for a tribune or for a king. We shall see what was seen in the\nfourteenth century: envoys will come from Rome to entreat the Pope to\nreturn to his faithful city.\n\nWhilst things continue as they are, the emperor can, by threatening to\nwithdraw his troops, compel the Pope to consent to anything not actually\nsinful. Such a situation is alarming in the highest degree for other\ncountries. But for the absolute confidence that all men have in the\nfidelity and conscientiousness of the present Pope, and for the\nprovidential circumstance that there is no ecclesiastical complication\nwhich the French Government could use for its own ends, it would not be\ntolerated by the rest of the Catholic world. Sooner or later these\nconditions of security will disappear, and the interest of the Church\ndemands that before that happens, the peril should be averted, even by a\ncatastrophe.\n\nThe hostility of the Italians themselves to the Holy See is the tragic\nsymptom of the present malady. In other ages, when it was assailed, the\nItalians were on its side, or at least were neutral. Now they require\nthe destruction of the temporal power, either as a necessary sacrifice\nfor the unity and greatness of their country, or as a just consequence\nof incurable defects. The time will come, however, when they will be\nreconciled with the Papacy, and with its presence as a Power among them.\nIt was the dependence of the Pope on the Austrian arms, and his\nidentification in popular opinion with the cause of the detested\nforeigner, that obscured his lofty position as the moral bulwark and\nprotector of the nation. For 1500 years the Holy See was the pivot of\nItalian history, and the source of the Italian influence in Europe. The\nnation and the See shared the same fortunes, and grew powerful or feeble\ntogether. It was not until the vices of Alexander VI. and his\npredecessors had destroyed the reverence which was the protection of\nItaly, that she became the prey of the invaders. None of the great\nItalian historians has failed to see that they would ruin themselves in\nraising their hands against Rome. The old prophecy of the _Papa\nAngelico_, of an Angel Pope, who was to rise up to put an end to discord\nand disorder, and to restore piety and peace and happiness in Italy, was\nbut the significant token of the popular belief that the Papacy and the\nnation were bound up together, and that one was the guardian of the\nother. That belief slumbers, now that the idea of unity prevails, whilst\nthe Italians are attempting to put the roof on a building without walls\nand without foundations, but it will revive again, when centralisation\nis compelled to yield to federalism, and the road to the practicable has\nbeen found in the search after impossibilities.\n\nThe tyrannical character of the Piedmontese Government, its contempt for\nthe sanctity of public law, the principles on which it treats the clergy\nat home, and the manner in which it has trampled on the rights of the\nPope and the interests of religion, the perfidy and despotism it\nexhibits, render it impossible that any securities it may offer to the\nPope can possess a real value. Moreover, in the unsettled state of the\nkingdom, the uncertain succession of parties, and the fluctuation of\npower, whatever guarantee is proposed by the ministry, there is nobody\nto guarantee the guarantor. It is a system without liberty and without\nstability; and the Pope can never be reconciled to it, or become a\ndweller in the new Italian kingdom.\n\nIf he must choose between the position of a subject and of an exile, he\nis at home in the whole Catholic world, and wherever he goes he will be\nsurrounded by children who will greet him as their father. It may become\nan inevitable, but it must always be a heroic resolution. The court and\nthe various congregations for the administration of the affairs of the\nChurch are too numerous to be easily moved. In former times the\nmachinery was more simple, and the whole body of the pontifical\ngovernment could be lodged in a single French monastery. The absence of\nthe Pope from Rome will involve great difficulties and annoyance; but it\nis a lesser evil than a surrender of principle, which cannot be\nrecalled.\n\nTo remove the Holy See to France would, under present circumstances, be\nan open challenge to a schism, and would afford to all who wish to\ncurtail the papal rights, or to interrupt the communication between the\nPope and the several churches, the most welcome pretexts, and it would\nput arms in the hands of governments that wish to impede the action of\nhis authority within their States.\n\nThe conclusion of the book is as follows:--\n\n   If the Court of Rome should reside for a time in Germany, the Roman\n   prelates will doubtless be agreeably surprised to discover that our\n   people is able to remain Catholic and religious without the\n   leading-strings of a police, and that its religious sentiments are a\n   better protection to the Church than the episcopal _carceri_, which,\n   thank God, do not exist. They will learn that the Church in Germany\n   is able to maintain herself without the Holy Office; that our\n   bishops, although, or because, they use no physical compulsion, are\n   reverenced like princes by the people, that they are received with\n   triumphal arches, that their arrival in a place is a festival for the\n   inhabitants. They will see how the Church with us rests on the broad,\n   strong, and healthy basis of a well-organised system of pastoral\n   administration and of popular religious instruction. They will\n   perceive that we Catholics have maintained for years the struggle for\n   the deliverance of the Church from the bonds of bureaucracy\n   straightforwardly and without reservation; that we cannot entertain\n   the idea of denying to the Italians what we have claimed for\n   ourselves; and that therefore we are far from thinking that it is\n   anywhere an advantage to fortify the Church with the authority of the\n   police and with the power of the secular arm. Throughout Germany we\n   have been taught by experience the truth of Fenelon's saying, that\n   the spiritual power must be carefully kept separate from the civil,\n   because their union is pernicious. They will find, further, that the\n   whole of the German clergy is prepared to bless the day when it shall\n   learn that the free sovereignty of the Pope is assured, without\n   sentence of death being still pronounced by ecclesiastics, without\n   priests continuing to discharge the functions of treasury-clerks or\n   police directors, or to conduct the business of the lottery. And,\n   finally, they will convince themselves that all the Catholics of\n   Germany will stand up as one man for the independence of the Holy\n   See, and the legitimate rights of the Pope; but that they are no\n   admirers of a form of government of very recent date, which is, in\n   fact, nothing else than the product of the mechanical polity of\n   Napoleon combined with a clerical administration. And this\n   information will bear good fruit when the hour shall strike for the\n   return, and restitution shall be made....\n\n   Meanwhile Pius IX. and the men of his Council will \"think upon the\n   days of old, and have in their minds the eternal years.\" They will\n   read the future in the earlier history of the Papacy, which has\n   already seen many an exile and many a restoration. The example of the\n   resolute, courageous Popes of the Middle Ages will light the way. It\n   is no question now of suffering martyrdom, of clinging to the tombs\n   of the Apostles, or of descending into the catacombs; but of quitting\n   the land of bondage, in order to exclaim on a free soil, \"Our bonds\n   are broken, and we are free!\" For the rest God will provide, and the\n   unceasing gifts and sympathies of the Catholic world. And the parties\n   in Italy, when they have torn and exhausted the land which has become\n   a battle-field; when the sobered and saddened people, tired of the\n   rule of lawyers and of soldiers, has understood the worth of a moral\n   and spiritual authority, then will be the time to think of returning\n   to the Eternal City. In the interval, the things will have\n   disappeared for whose preservation such pains are taken; and then\n   there will be better reason than Consalvi had, in the preface to the\n   _Motu Proprio_ of 6th July 1816, to say: \"Divine Providence, which so\n   conducts human affairs that out of the greatest calamity innumerable\n   benefits proceed, seems to have intended that the interruption of the\n   papal government should prepare the way for a more perfect form of\n   it.\"\n\nWe have written at a length for which we must apologise to our readers;\nand yet this is but a meagre sketch of the contents of a book which\ndeals with a very large proportion of the subjects that occupy the\nthoughts and move the feelings of religious men. We will attempt to sum\nup in a few words the leading ideas of the author. Addressing a mixed\naudience, he undertakes to controvert two different interpretations of\nthe events which are being fulfilled in Rome. To the Protestants, who\ntriumph in the expected downfall of the Papacy, he shows the\nconsequences of being without it. To the Catholics, who see in the Roman\nquestion a great peril to the Church, he explains how the possession of\nthe temporal sovereignty had become a greater misfortune than its loss\nfor a time would be. From the opposite aspects of the religious camps of\nour age he endeavours to awaken the misgivings of one party, and to\nstrengthen the confidence of the other. There is an inconsistency\nbetween the Protestant system and the progress of modern learning; there\nis none between the authority of the Holy See and the progress of modern\nsociety. The events which are tending to deprive the Pope of his\nterritory are not to be, therefore, deplored, if we consider the\npreceding causes, because they made this catastrophe inevitable; still\nless if, looking to the future, we consider the state of Protestantism,\nbecause they remove an obstacle to union which is humanly almost\ninsurmountable. In a former work Doellinger exhibited the moral and\nintellectual exhaustion of Paganism as the prelude to Christianity. In\nlike manner he now confronts the dissolution and spiritual decay of\nProtestantism with the Papacy. But in order to complete the contrast,\nand give force to the vindication, it was requisite that the true\nfunction and character of the Holy See should not be concealed from the\nunpractised vision of strangers by the mask of that system of government\nwhich has grown up around it in modern times. The importance of this\nviolent disruption of the two authorities consists in the state of\nreligion throughout the world. Its cause lies in the deficiences of the\ntemporal power; its end in the mission of the spiritual.\n\nThe interruption of the temporal sovereignty is the only way we can\ndiscern in which these deficiences can be remedied and these ends\nobtained. But this interruption cannot be prolonged. In an age in which\nthe State throughout the Continent is absolute, and tolerates no\nimmunities; when corporations have therefore less freedom than\nindividuals, and the disposition to restrict their action increases in\nproportion to their power, the Pope cannot be independent as a subject.\nHe must, therefore, be a sovereign, the free ruler of an actual\nterritory, protected by international law and a European guarantee. The\nrestoration consequently is necessary, though not as an immediate\nconsequence of the revolution. In this revolutionary age the protection\nof the Catholic Powers is required against outward attack. They must\nalso be our security that no disaffection is provoked within; that there\nshall be no recurrence of the dilemma between the right of insurrection\nagainst an arbitrary government and the duty of obedience to the Pope;\nand that civil society shall not again be convulsed, nor the pillars of\nlaw and order throughout Europe shaken, by a revolution against the\nChurch, of which, in the present instance, the conservative powers share\nthe blame, and have already felt the consequences.\n\nIn the earnest and impressive language of the conclusion, in which\nDoellinger conveys the warnings which all Transalpine Catholicism owes to\nits Head as an Italian sovereign, it seems to us that something more\ndefinite is intended than the expression of the wish, which almost every\nCatholic feels, to receive the Pope in his own country. The anxiety for\nhis freedom which would be felt if he took refuge in France, would be\nalmost equally justified by his presence in Austria. A residence in an\nexclusively Catholic country, such as Spain, would be contrary to the\nwhole spirit of this book, and to the moral which it inculcates, that\nthe great significance of the crisis is in the state of German\nProtestantism. If the position of the Catholics in Germany would supply\nuseful lessons and examples to the Roman court, it is also from the\nvicinity of the Protestant world that the full benefit can best be drawn\nfrom its trials, and that the crimes of the Italians, which have begun\nas calamities, may be turned to the advantage of the Church. But\nagainst such counsels there is a powerful influence at work. Napoleon\nhas declared his determination to sweep away the temporal power. The\ncontinuance of the occupation of Rome, and his express prohibition to\nthe Piedmontese government to proceed with the annexation during the\nlife of the present Pope, signify that he calculates on greater\nadvantages in a conclave than from the patient resolution of Pius IX.\nThis policy is supported by the events in Italy in a formidable manner.\nThe more the Piedmontese appear as enemies and persecutors, the more the\nemperor will appear as the only saviour; and the dread of a prolonged\nexile in any Catholic country, and of dependence for subsistence on the\ncontributions of the faithful, must exhibit in a fascinating light the\nenjoyment of the splendid hospitality and powerful protection of France.\nOn these hopes and fears, and on the difficulties which are pressing on\nthe cardinals from the loss of their revenues, the emperor speculates,\nand persuades himself that he will be master of the next election. On\nthe immovable constancy of her Supreme Pontiff the Catholic Church\nunconditionally relies; and we are justified in believing that, in an\nalmost unparalleled emergency, he will not tremble before a resolution\nof which no Pope has given an example since the consolidation of the\ntemporal power.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 334: _The Rambler_, November 1861.]\n\n[Footnote 335: _Kirche und Kirchen_, Munich, 1861 (\"Papstum und\nKirchenstaat\").]\n\n[Footnote 336: So late as 1791 Pius VI. wrote: \"Discrimen intercedit\ninter homines, qui extra gremium Ecclesiae semper fuerunt, quales sunt\nInfideles atque Judaei, atque inter illos qui se Ecclesiae ipsi per\nsusceptum baptismi sacramentum subjecerunt. Primi enim constringi ad\ncatholicam obedientiam non debent, contra vero alteri sunt cogendi.\" If\nthis theory had, like that of the Protestants, been put in practice by\nthe Government, it would have furnished the Protestants with an argument\nprecisely similar to that by which the Catholics justified the severity\nthey exercised towards them.]\n\n[Footnote 337: The works contained in Clark's library of translations\nare chiefly of this school.]\n\n\n\n\nXI\n\nDOeLLINGER'S HISTORICAL WORK[338]\n\n\nWhen first seen, at Wuerzburg, in the diaries of Platen the poet, Dr.\nDoellinger was an eager student of general literature, and especially of\nSchlegel and the romantic philosophy. It was an epoch in which the\nlayman and the _dilettante_ prevailed. In other days a divine had half a\ndozen distinct schools of religious thought before him, each able to\ndevelop and to satisfy a receptive mind; but the best traditions of\nwestern scholarship had died away when the young Franconian obtained a\nchair in the reorganised university of Munich. His own country, Bavaria,\nhis time, the third decade of the century, furnished no guide, no\nmaster, and no model to the new professor. Exempt, by date and position,\nfrom the discipline of a theological party, he so continued, and never\nturned elsewhere for the dependence he escaped at home. No German\ntheologian, of his own or other churches, bent his course; and he\nderived nothing from the powerful writer then dominant in the North. To\na friend describing Herder as the one unprofitable classic, he replied,\n\"Did you ever learn anything from Schleiermacher?\" And if it is doubtful\nwhich way this stroke was aimed, it is certain that he saw less than\nothers in the Berlin teacher.\n\nVery young he knew modern languages well, though with a defective ear,\nand having no local or contemporary attachments he devoted himself\nsystematically to the study of foreign divines. The characteristic\nuniversality of his later years was not the mere result of untiring\nenergy and an unlimited command of books. His international habit sprang\nfrom the inadequacy of the national supply, and the search for truth in\nevery century naturally became a lecturer whose function it was to\nunfold from first to last the entire life of the Church, whose range\nextended over all Christian ages, and who felt the inferiority of his\nown. Doellinger's conception of the science which he was appointed to\ncarry forward, in conformity with new requirements and new resources,\ndiffered from the average chiefly by being more thorough and\ncomprehensive. At two points he was touched by currents of the day.\nSavigny, the legal expert of a school recruited from both denominations\nand gravitating towards Catholicism, had expounded law and society in\nthat historic spirit which soon pervaded other sciences, and restored\nthe significance of national custom and character. By his writings\nProtestant literature overlapped. The example of the conspicuous jurist\nserved as a suggestion for divines to realise the patient process of\nhistory; and Doellinger continued to recognise him as a master and\noriginator of true scientific methods when his influence on\njurisprudence was on the wane. On the same track, Drey, in 1819,\ndefended the theory of development as the vital prerogative of Rome over\nthe fixity of other churches. Moehler was the pupil of Drey, and they\nmade Tuebingen the seat of a positive theology, broader and more\nprogressive than that of Munich.\n\nThe first eminent thinker whom he saw and heard was Baader, the poorest\nof writers, but the most instructive and impressive talker in Germany,\nand the one man who appears to have influenced the direction of his\nmind. Bishop Martensen has described his amazing powers; and Doellinger,\nwho remembered him with more scant esteem, bore equal testimony to the\nwealth and worth of his religious philosophy. He probably owed to him\nhis persistent disparagement of Hegel, and more certainly that\nfamiliarity with the abstruse literature of mysticism which made him as\nclear and sure of vision in the twilight of Petrucci and St. Martin as\nin the congenial company of Duperron. Baader is remembered by those who\nabstain from sixteen volumes of discordant thought, as the inventor of\nthat system of political insurance which became the Holy Alliance. That\nauthority is as sacred and sovereignty as absolute in the Church as in\nthe State, was an easy and obvious inference, and it had been lately\ndrawn with an energy and literary point to which Baader was a stranger,\nby the Count de Maistre, who was moreover a student of St. Martin. When\nthe ancient mystic welcomed his new friend, he was full of the praises\nof De Maistre. He impressed upon his earnest listener the importance of\nthe books on the pope and on the Gallican church, and assured him that\nthe spirit which animates them is the genuine Catholicism. These\nconversations were the origin of Doellinger's specific ultramontanism. It\ngoverned one half of his life, and his interest in De Maistre outlasted\nthe assent which he once gave to some of his opinions. Questions arising\nfrom the Savoyard's indictment against Bacon, which he proposed to\nLiebig, formed the connection between the two laboured attacks on the\nfounder of English philosophy.\n\nMuch of that which at any time was unhistoric or presumptive in his mind\nmay be ascribed to this influence; and it divided him from Moehler, who\nwas far before him in the fulness of the enjoyment of his powers and his\nfame, whom he survived half a century, and never ceased to venerate as\nthe finest theological intellect he had known. The publication of the\n_Symbolik_ made it difficult for the author to remain in Wirtemberg;\nTuebingen, he said, was a place where he could neither live nor die\nhappy; and having made Doellinger's acquaintance, he conceived an ardent\nwish to become his colleague at Munich.\n\n   Im Verkehre mit Ihnen, und dem Kreise in dem Sie leben, habe ich mich\n   aufs anmuthigste erheitert, sittlich gestaerkt, und religioes getroestet\n   und ermuthigt gefunden; ein Verein von Einwirkungen auf mich wuerde\n   mir gewaehrt, deren aller ich in fast gleichein Grade beduerftig war.\n\nDoellinger negotiated his appointment, overcame the resisting ministerial\nmedium through the intervention of the king, and surrendered his own\ndepartment of theology, which they both regarded as the most powerful\nagency in religious instruction. Moehler had visited Goettingen and\nBerlin, and recognised their superiority. A public address to Planck,\npraising the Protestant treatment of history, was omitted by Doellinger\nfrom the edition of his miscellaneous writings. They differed so widely\nthat one of them hesitated to read Bossuet's _Defensio_, and generally\nkept the stronger Gallicans out of sight, whilst the other warmly\nrecommended Richer, and Launoy, and Dupin, and cautioned his pupils\nagainst Baronius, as a forger and a cheat, who dishonestly attributed to\nthe primitive Church ideas quite foreign to its constitution. He found\nfault with his friend for undue favour to the Jesuits, and undue\nseverity towards Jansenism. The other advised him to read Fenelon, and\nsucceeded in modifying this opinion.\n\n   Sie werden vielleicht um so geneigter sein, mir zu verzeihen, wenn\n   ich Ihnen melde, dass ich inzwischen recht fleissig die\n   Jansenistischen Streitigkeiten, durch Ihre freundliche Zuschrift\n   angeregt, studirt habe, und Ihrer Darstellung ohne Zweifel jetzt weit\n   naeher stehe als frueher. Selbst die Bulle Unigenitus erscheint mir in\n   einem weit guenstigeren Lichte als frueher, obschon ich die Censur\n   mancher Quesnel'scher Saetze immer noch nicht begreifen kann. Sie\n   schrieben mir, dass die Fenelon'sche Correspondenz einen grossen\n   Einfluss auf Ihre Betrachtungsweise ausgeuebt habe. Auch bei mir ist\n   dieses der Fall.\n\nBut in describing the failure of scholastic theology, the exaggeration\nof De Maistre, the incompetence of the Roman censorship, the irreligion\nof Leo X., and the strength of Luther's case against the Papacy, the\nsensitive Suabian made a contrast, then, and long after, with\nDoellinger's disciplined coolness and reserve.\n\n   Dann war wirklich die bestehende Form der Kirche im hoechsten Grade\n   tadelhaft, und bedurfte der Reinigung. Die Paepste waren Despoten,\n   willkuehrliche Herrscher geworden. Gebraeuche hatten sich angehaeuft,\n   die im hoechsten Grade dem Glauben und der christlichen Froemmigkeit\n   entgegen waren. In vielen Punkten hatte Luther immer Recht, wenn er\n   von Missbraeuchen der Roemischen Gewalt spricht, dass dort alles feil\n   sei.--Tetzel verfuhr ohnediess auf die empoerendste Weise, und\n   uebertrieb, mit einer religioesen Rohheit und einem Stumpfsinn ohne\n   Gleichen, das Bedenkliche der Sache auf die aeusserste Spitze.\n\nThe disagreement which made itself felt from time to time between the\nfamous colleagues was not removed when one of them wished the other to\nchange his confessor before his last illness.\n\nMoehler claimed the supreme chair of ecclesiastical history as a matter\nof course, and by right of seniority. He apologised for venturing to\nsupersede one who had gained distinction in that lecture-room, but he\nhinted that he himself was the least fit of the two for dogmatics.\n\n   Ich habe mich fuer die historischen Faecher entschieden. Ihr Opfer,\n   wenn Sie Dogmatik lesen, anerkenne ich, aber ich bitte das meinige\n   nicht zu uebersehen. Welcher Entschluss, ich moechte sagen, welche\n   Unverschaemtheit ist es, nach Ihnen und bei Ihren Lebzeiten,\n   Kirchengeschichte in Muenchen zu doziren?\n\nDoellinger took that branch for the time, but he never afterwards taught\ntheology proper. As Moehler, who was essentially a theologian, deserted\ndivinity to compose inferior treatises on the gnostics and the false\ndecretals, Doellinger, by choice and vocation a divine, having religion\nas the purpose of his life, judged that the loftier function, the more\nspiritual service, was historical teaching. The problem is to know how\nit came to pass that a man who was eminently intelligent and perspicuous\nin the exposition of doctrines, but who, in narrative, description, and\nknowledge of character, was neither first nor second, resolved that his\nmission was history.\n\nIn early life he had picked up chance copies of Baronius and Petavius,\nthe pillars of historic theology; but the motives of his choice lay\ndeeper. Church history had long been the weakest point and the cause of\nweakness among the Catholics, and it was the rising strength of the\nGerman Protestants. Therefore it was the post of danger; and it gave to\na theologian the command of a public of laymen. The restoration of\nhistory coincided with the euthanasia of metaphysic; when the foremost\nphilosophic genius of the time led over to the historic treatment both\nof philosophy and religion, and Hamilton, Cousin, Comte, severally\nconverted the science into its history. Many men better equipped for\nspeculation than for erudition went the same way; the systematic\ntheology was kept up in the universities by the influence of Rome, where\nscholasticism went on untouched by the romantic transformation. Writing\nof England, Wiseman said: \"There is still a scholastic hardness in our\ncontroversial theology, an unbendingness of outward forms in our\nexplanations of Catholic principles, which renders our theologians dry\nand unattractive to the most catholicly inclined portion of our\nProtestants.\" The choice which these youths made, towards 1830, was,\nthough they did not know it, the beginning of a rift that widened.\n\nDoellinger was more in earnest than others in regarding Christianity as\nhistory, and in pressing the affinity between catholic and historical\nthought. Systems were to him nearly as codes to Savigny, when he\nexhorted his contemporaries not to consolidate their law, lest, with\ntheir wisdom and knowledge, they should incorporate their delusions and\ntheir ignorance, and usurp for the state what belonged to the nation. He\nwould send an inquiring student to the _Historia Congregationis de\nAuxiliis_ and the _Historia Pelagiana_ rather than to Molina or Lemos,\nand often gave the advice which, coming from Oriel, disconcerted Morris\nof Exeter: \"I am afraid you will have to read the Jesuit Petavius.\" He\ndreaded the predominance of great names which stop the way, and\neverything that interposes the notions of an epoch, a region, or a\nschool between the Church and the observer.\n\nTo an Innsbruck professor, lamenting that there was no philosophy which\nhe could heartily adopt, he replied that philosophies do not subsist in\norder to be adopted. A Thomist or a Cartesian seemed to him as a\ncaptive, or a one-armed combatant. Prizing metaphysicians for the\nunstrung pearls which they drop beyond the seclusion of system, he loved\nthe _disjecta membra_ of Coleridge, and preferred the _Pensieri_, and\n_Parerga und Paralipomena_ to the constructed work of Gioberti and\nSchopenhauer. He knew Leibniz chiefly in his letters, and was\nperceptibly affected by his law of continuous progression, his general\noptimism, and his eclectic art of extracting from men and books only the\ngood that is in them; but of monadology or pre-established harmony there\nwas not a trace. His colleague, Schelling, no friend to the friends of\nBaader, stood aloof. The elder Windischmann, whom he particularly\nesteemed, and who acted in Germany as the interpreter of De Maistre, had\nhailed Hegel as a pioneer of sound philosophy, with whom he agreed both\nin thought and word. Doellinger had no such condescension. Hegel\nremained, in his _eyes_, the strongest of all the enemies of religion,\nthe guide of Tuebingen in its aberrations, the reasoner whose abstract\ndialectics made a generation of clever men incapable of facing facts. He\nwent on preferring former historians of dogma, who were untainted by the\ntrail of pantheism, Baumgarten-Crusius, and even Muenscher, and by no\nmeans admitted that Baur was deeper than the early Jesuits and\nOratorians, or gained more than he lost by constriction in the Hegelian\ncoil. He took pleasure in pointing out that the best recent book on the\npenitential system, Kliefoth's fourth volume, owed its substance to\nMorinus. The dogmas of pantheistic history offended him too much to give\nthem deep study, and he was ill prepared with counsel for a wanderer\nlost in the pervading haze. Hegelians said of him that he lacked the\nconstructive unity of idea, and knew the way from effect to cause, but\nnot from cause to law.\n\nHis own lectures on the philosophy of religion, which have left no deep\nfurrow, have been praised by Ketteler, who was not an undiscriminating\nadmirer. He sent on one of his pupils to Rosmini, and set another to\nbegin metaphysics with Suarez; and when Lady Ashburton consulted him on\nthe subject, he advised her to read Norris and Malebranche. He\nencouraged the study of remoter luminaries, such as Cusa and Raymundus,\nwhose _Natural Theology_ he preferred to the _Analogy_; and would not\nhave men overlook some who are off the line, like Postel. But although\nhe deemed it the mark of inferiority to neglect a grain of the gold of\nobsolete and eccentric writers, he always assigned to original\nspeculation a subordinate place, as a good servant but a bad master,\nwithout the certainty and authority of history. What one of his English\nfriends writes of a divine they both admired, might fitly be applied to\nhim:\n\n   He was a disciple in the school of Bishop Butler, and had learned as\n   a first principle to recognise the limitations of human knowledge,\n   and the unphilosophical folly of trying to round off into finished\n   and pretentious schemes our fragmentary yet certain notices of our\n   own condition and of God's dealing with it.\n\nHe alarmed Archer Gurney by saying that all hope of an understanding is\nat an end, if logic be applied for the rectification of dogma, and to\nDr. Plummer, who acknowledged him as the most capable of modern\ntheologians and historians, he spoke of the hopelessness of trying to\ndiscover the meaning of terms used in definitions. To his archbishop he\nwrote that men may discuss the mysteries of faith to the last day\nwithout avail; \"we stand here on the solid ground of history, evidence,\nand fact.\" Expressing his innermost thought, that religion exists to\nmake men better, and that the ethical quality of dogma constitutes its\nvalue, he once said: \"Tantum valet quantum ad corrigendum, purgandum,\nsanctificandum hominem confert.\" In theology as an intellectual\nexercise, beyond its action on the soul, he felt less interest, and\nthose disputes most satisfied him which can be decided by appeal to the\nhistorian.\n\nFrom his early reputation and his position at the outpost, confronting\nProtestant science, he was expected to make up his mind over a large\narea of unsettled thought and disputed fact, and to be provided with an\nopinion--a freehold opinion of his own--and a reasoned answer to every\ndifficulty. People had a right to know what he knew about the end of the\nsixteenth chapter of St. Mark, and the beginning of the eighth chapter\nof St. John, the lives of St. Patrick and the sources of Erigena, the\nauthor of the _Imitation_ and of the _Twelve Articles_, the _Nag's Head_\nand the _Casket Letters_. The suspense and poise of the mind, which is\nthe pride and privilege of the unprofessional scholar, was forbidden\nhim. Students could not wait for the master to complete his studies;\nthey flocked for dry light of knowledge, for something defined and\nfinal, to their keen, grave, unemotional professor, who said sometimes\nmore than he could be sure of, but who was not likely to abridge thought\nby oracular responses, or to give aphorism for argument. He accepted the\nnecessity of the situation. A time came when everybody was invited, once\na week, to put any imaginable question from the whole of Church history,\nand he at once replied. If this was a stimulus to exertion during the\nyears spent in mastering and pondering the immense materials, it served\nless to promote originality and care than premature certitude and the\ncraving for quick returns. Apart from the constant duty of teaching, his\nknowledge might not have been so extensive, but his views would have\nbeen less decided and therefore less liable to change.\n\nAs an historian, Doellinger regarded Christianity as a force more than as\na doctrine, and displayed it as it expanded and became the soul of later\nhistory. It was the mission and occupation of his life to discover and\nto disclose how this was accomplished, and to understand the history of\ncivilised Europe, religious and profane, mental and political, by the\naid of sources which, being original and authentic, yielded certainty.\nIn his vigorous prime, he thought that it would be within his powers to\ncomplete the narrative of the conquest of the world by Christ in a\nsingle massive work. The separated churches, the centrifugal forces,\nwere to have been treated apart, until he adopted the ampler title of a\nhistory of Christianity. We who look back upon all that the combined and\ndivided labour of a thousand earnest, gifted, and often instructed men\nhas done and left undone in sixty years, can estimate the scientific\nlevel of an age where such a dream could be dreamed by such a man,\nmisled neither by imagination nor ambition, but knowing his own\nlimitations and the immeasurable world of books. Experience slowly\ntaught him that he who takes all history for his province is not the man\nto write a compendium.\n\nThe four volumes of _Church History_ which gave him a name in literature\nappeared between 1833 and 1838, and stopped short of the Reformation. In\nwriting mainly for the horizon of seminaries, it was desirable to eschew\nvoyages of discovery and the pathless border-land. The materials were\nall in print, and were the daily bread of scholars. A celebrated\nAnglican described Doellinger at that time as more intentional than\nFleury; while Catholics objected that he was a candid friend; and\nLutherans, probing deeper, observed that he resolutely held his ground\nwherever he could, and as resolutely abandoned every position that he\nfound untenable. He has since said of himself that he always spoke\nsincerely, but that he spoke as an advocate--a sincere advocate who\npleaded only for a cause which he had convinced himself was just. The\ncause he pleaded was the divine government of the Church, the fulfilment\nof the promise that it would be preserved from error, though not from\nsin, the uninterrupted employment of the powers committed by Christ for\nthe salvation of man. By the absence of false arts he acquired that\nrepute for superior integrity which caused a Tyrolese divine to speak of\nhim as the most chivalrous of the Catholic celebrities; and the nuncio\nwho was at Munich during the first ten years called him the \"professeur\nle plus eclaire, le plus religieux, en un mot le plus distingue de\nl'universite.\"\n\nTaking his survey from the elevation of general history, he gives less\nspace to all the early heresies together than to the rise of\nMohammedanism. His way lies between Neander, who cares for no\ninstitutions, and Baur, who cares for no individuals. He was entirely\nexempt from that impersonal idealism which Sybel laid down at the\nfoundation of his review, which causes Delbrueck to complain that\nMacaulay, who could see facts so well, could not see that they are\nrevelations, which Baur defines without disguise in his\n_Dreieinigkeitslehre_: \"Alle geschichtlichen Personen sind fuer uns\nblosse Namen.\" The two posthumous works of Hegel which turned events\ninto theories had not then appeared. Doellinger, setting life and action\nabove theory, omitted the progress of doctrine. He proposed that Moehler\nshould take that share of their common topic, and the plan, entertained\nat first, was interrupted, with much besides, by death. He felt too\ndeeply the overwhelming unity of force to yield to that atomic theory\nwhich was provoked by the Hegelian excess: \"L'histoire n'est pas un\nsimple jeu d'abstractions, et les hommes y sont plus que les doctrines.\nCe n'est pas une certaine theorie sur la justification et la redemption\nqui a fait la Reforme: c'est Luther, c'est Calvin.\" But he allows a vast\nscope to the variable will and character of man. The object of religion\nupon earth is saintliness, and its success is shown in holy individuals.\nHe leaves law and doctrine, moving in their appointed orbits, to hold up\ngreat men and examples of Christian virtue.\n\nDoellinger, who had in youth acted as secretary to Hohenlohe, was always\nreserved in his use of the supernatural. In the vision of Constantine\nand the rebuilding of the temple, he gives his reader both the natural\nexplanation and the miraculous. He thought that the witness of the\nfathers to the continuance of miraculous powers could not be resisted\nwithout making history _a priori_, but later on, the more he sifted and\ncompared authorities, the more severe he became. He deplored the\nuncritical credulity of the author of the _Monks of the West_; and, in\nexamining the Stigmata, he cited the experience of a Spanish convent\nwhere they were so common that it became a sign of reprobation to be\nwithout them. Historians, he said, have to look for natural causes:\nenough will remain for the action of Providence, where we cannot\npenetrate. In his unfinished book on _Ecclesiastical Prophecy_ he\nenumerates the illusions of mediaeval saints when they spoke of the\nfuture, and describes them, as he once described Carlyle and Ruskin, as\nprophets having nothing to foretell. At Frankfort, where he spoilt his\nwatch by depositing it in unexpected holy water, and it was whispered\nthat he had put it there to mend it, everybody knew that there was\nhardly a Catholic in the Parliament of whom such a fable could be told\nwith more felicitous unfitness.\n\nFor twenty years of his life at Munich, Goerres was the impressive\ncentral figure of a group reputed far and wide, the most intellectual\nforce in the Catholic world. Seeing things by the light of other days,\nNippold and Maurenbrecher describe Doellinger himself as its most eminent\nmember. There was present gain and future peril in living amongst a\nclever but restricted set, sheltered, supported, and restrained by\nfriends who were united in aims and studies, who cherished their\nsympathies and their enmities in common, and who therefore believed that\nthey were divided by no deep cleft or ultimate principle. Doellinger\nnever outlived the glamour of the eloquence and ascendancy of Goerres,\nand spoke of him long after his death as a man of real knowledge, and of\ngreater religious than political insight Between the imaginative\nrhetorician and the measured, scrutinising scholar, the contrast was\nwide. One of the many pupils and rare disciples of the former complained\nthat his friend supplied interminable matter for the sterile and\nunavailing _Mystik_, in order to amuse him with ropes of sand: and the\nseverest censure of Doellinger's art as an historian was pronounced by\nGoerres when he said, \"I always see analogies, and you always see\ndifferences.\"\n\nAt all times, but in his early studies especially, he owed much to the\nItalians, whose ecclesiastical literature was the first that he\nmastered, and predominates in his Church history. Several of his\ncountrymen, such as Savigny and Raumer, had composed history on the\nshoulders of Bolognese and Lombard scholars, and some of their most\nconspicuous successors to the present day have lived under heavy\nobligations to Modena and San Marino. During the tranquil century\nbefore the Revolution, Italians studied the history of their country\nwith diligence and success. Even such places as Parma, Verona, Brescia,\nbecame centres of obscure but faithful work. Osimo possessed annals as\nbulky as Rome. The story of the province of Treviso was told in twenty\nvolumes. The antiquities of Picenum filled thirty-two folios. The best\nof all this national and municipal patriotism was given to the service\nof religion. Popes and cardinals, dioceses and parish churches became\nthe theme of untiring enthusiasts. There too were the stupendous records\nof the religious orders, their bulls and charters, their biography and\ntheir bibliography. In this immense world of patient, accurate, devoted\nresearch, Doellinger laid the deep foundations of his historical\nknowledge. Beginning like everybody with Baronius and Muratori, he gave\na large portion of his life to Noris, and to the solid and enlightened\nscholarship that surrounded Benedict XIV., down to the compilers,\nBorgia, Fantuzzi, Marini, with whom, in the evil days of regeneration by\nthe French, the grand tradition died away. He has put on record his\njudgment that Orsi and Saccarelli were the best writers on the general\nhistory of the Church. Afterwards, when other layers had been\nsuperposed, and the course he took was his own, he relied much on the\ncanonists, Ballerini and Berardi; and he commended Bianchi, De\nBennettis, and the author of the anonymous _Confutazione_, as the\nstrongest Roman antidote to Blondel, Buckeridge, and Barrow. Italy\npossessed the largest extant body of Catholic learning; the whole sphere\nof Church government was within its range, and it enjoyed something of\nthe official prerogative.\n\nNext to the Italians he gave systematic attention to the French. The\nconspicuous Gallicans, the Jansenists, from whom at last he derived much\nsupport, Richer, Van Espen, Launoy, whom he regarded as the original of\nBossuet, Arnauld, whom he thought his superior, are absent from his\npages. He never overcame his distrust of Pascal, for his methodical\nscepticism and his endeavour to dissociate religion from learning; and\nhe rated high Daniel's reply to the _Provinciales_. He esteemed still\nmore the French Protestants of the seventeenth century, who transformed\nthe system of Geneva and Dort. English theology did not come much in his\nway until he had made himself at home with the Italians and the primary\nFrench. Then it abounded. He gathered it in quantities on two journeys\nin 1851 and 1858, and he possessed the English divines in perfection, at\nleast down to Whitby, and the nonjurors. Early acquaintance with Sir\nEdward Vavasour and Lord Clifford had planted a lasting prejudice in\nfavour of the English Catholic families, which sometimes tinged his\njudgments. The neglected literature of the Catholics in England held a\nplace in his scheme of thought, which it never obtained in the eyes of\nany other scholar, native or foreign. This was the only considerable\nschool of divines who wrote under persecution, and were reduced to an\nattitude of defence. In conflict with the most learned, intelligent, and\nconciliatory of controversialists, they developed a remarkable spirit of\nmoderation, discriminating inferior elements from the original and\ngenuine growth of Catholic roots; and their several declarations and\nmanifestoes, from the Restoration onwards, were an inexhaustible supply\nfor irenics. Therefore they powerfully attracted one who took the words\nof St Vincent of Lerins not merely for a flash of illumination, but for\na scientific formula and guiding principle. Few writers interested him\nmore deeply than Stapleton, Davenport, who anticipated Number XC.,\nIrishmen, such as Caron and Walshe, and the Scots, Barclay, the\nadversary and friend of Bellarmine, Ramsay, the convert and recorder of\nFenelon. It may be that, to an intellect trained in the historic\nprocess, stability, continuity, and growth were terms of more vivid and\nexact significance than to the doctors of Pont-a-Mousson and Lambspring.\nBut when he came forward arrayed in the spoils of Italian libraries and\nGerman universities, with the erudition of centuries and the criticism\nof to-day, he sometimes was content to follow where forgotten\nBenedictines or Franciscans had preceded, under the later Stuarts.\n\nHe seldom quotes contemporary Germans, unless to dispute with them,\nprefers old books to new, and speaks of the necessary revision and\nrenovation of history. He suspected imported views and foregone\nconclusions even in Neander; and although he could not say, with\nMacaulay, that Gieseler was a rascal, of whom he had never heard, he\nmissed no opportunity of showing his dislike for that accomplished\nartificer in mosaic. Looking at the literature before him, at England,\nwith Gibbon for its one ecclesiastical historian; at Germany, with the\nmost profound of its divines expecting the Church to merge in the State,\nhe inferred that its historic and organic unity would only be recognised\nby Catholic science, while the soundest Protestant would understand it\nleast. In later years, Kliefoth, Ritschl, Gass, perhaps also Dorner and\nUhlhorn, obliged him to modify an opinion which the entire school of\nSchleiermacher, including the illustrious Rothe, served only to confirm.\nGermany, as he found it when he began to see the world, little resembled\nthat of his old age, when the work he had pursued for seventy years was\ncarried forward, with knowledge and power like his own, by the best of\nhis countrymen. The proportion of things was changed. There was a\nreligious literature to be proud of, to rely on: other nations, other\nepochs, had lost their superiority. As his own people advanced, and\ndominated in the branches of learning to which his life was given, in\neverything except literary history and epigraphies, and there was no\nmore need to look abroad, Doellinger's cosmopolitan characteristic\ndiminished, he was more absorbed in the national thought and work, and\ndid not object to be called the most German of the Germans.\n\nThe idea that religious science is not so much science as religion, that\nit should be treated differently from other matters, so that he who\ntreats it may rightly display his soul, flourished in his vicinity,\ninspiring the lives of Saint Elizabeth and Joan of Arc, Moehler's fine\nlectures on the early fathers, and the book which Gratry chose to\nentitle a _Commentary on St. Matthew_. Doellinger came early to the\nbelief that history ought to be impersonal, that the historian does\nwell to keep out of the way, to be humble and self-denying, making it a\nreligious duty to prevent the intrusion of all that betrays his own\nposition and quality, his hopes and wishes. Without aspiring to the calm\nindifference of Ranke, he was conscious that, in early life, he had been\ntoo positive, and too eager to persuade. The Belgian scholar who,\nconversing with him in 1842, was reminded of Fenelon, missed the acuter\nangles of his character. He, who in private intercourse sometimes\nallowed himself to persist, to contradict, and even to baffle a bore by\nfrankly falling asleep, would have declined the evocation of Versailles.\nBut in reasonableness, moderation, and charity, in general culture of\nmind and the sense of the demands of the progress of civilisation, in\nthe ideal church for which he lived, he was more in harmony with Fenelon\nthan with many others who resembled him in the character of their work.\n\nHe deemed it catholic to take ideas from history, and heresy to take\nthem into it. When men gave evidence for the opposite party, and against\ntheir own, he willingly took for impartiality what he could not always\ndistinguish from indifference or subdivision. He felt that sincere\nhistory was the royal road to religious union, and he specially\ncultivated those who saw both sides. He would cite with complacency what\nclever Jesuits, Raynaud and Faure, said for the Reformation, Mariana and\nCordara against their society. When a Rhenish Catholic and a Genevese\nCalvinist drew two portraits of Calvin which were virtually the same, or\nwhen, in Ficker's revision of Boehmer, the Catholic defended the Emperor\nFrederic II. against the Protestant, he rejoiced as over a sign of the\nadvent of science. As the Middle Ages, rescued from polemics by the\ngenial and uncritical sympathy of Mueller, became an object of popular\nstudy, and Royer Collard said of Villemain, _Il a fait, il fait, et il\nfera toujours son Gregoire VII._, there were Catholics who desired, by a\nprolonged _sorites_, to derive advantage from the new spirit. Wiseman\nconsulted Doellinger for the purpose. \"Will you be kind enough to write\nme a list of what you consider the best books for the history of the\nReformation; Menzel and Buchholz I know; especially any exposing the\ncharacters of the leading reformers?\" In the same frame of mind he asked\nhim what pope there was whose good name had not been vindicated; and\nDoellinger's reply, that Boniface VIII. wanted a friend, prompted both\nWiseman's article and Tosti's book.\n\nIn politics, as in religion, he made the past a law for the present, and\nresisted doctrines which are ready-made, and are not derived from\nexperience. Consequently, he undervalued work which would never have\nbeen done from disinterested motives; and there were three of his most\neminent contemporaries whom he decidedly underestimated. Having known\nThiers, and heard him speak, he felt profoundly the talent of the\nextraordinary man, before Lanfrey or Taine, Haeusser and Bernhardt had so\nruined his credit among Germans that Doellinger, disgusted by his\nadvocacy, whether of the Revolution, of Napoleon, or of France,\nneglected his work. Stahl claims to be accounted an historian by his\nincomparably able book on the Church government of the Reformation. As a\nprofessor at Munich, and afterwards as a parliamentary leader at Berlin,\nhe was always an avowed partisan. Doellinger depreciated him accordingly,\nand he had the mortification that certain remarks on the sovereign\ndialectician of European conservatism were on the point of appearing\nwhen he died. He so far made it good in his preface that the thing was\nforgotten when Gerlach came to see the assailant of his friend. But\nonce, when I spoke of Stahl as the greatest man born of a Jewish mother\nsince Titus, he thought me unjust to Disraeli.\n\nMost of all, he misjudged Macaulay, whose German admirers are not always\nin the higher ranks of literature, and of whom Ranke even said that he\ncould hardly be called an historian at all, tried by the stricter test.\nHe had no doubt seen how his unsuggestive fixity and assurance could\ncramp and close a mind; and he felt more beholden to the rivals who\nproduced d'Adda, Barillon, and Bonnet, than to the author of so many\npictures and so much bootless decoration. He tendered a course of\nBacon's Essays, or of Butler's and Newman's Sermons, as a preservative\nagainst intemperate dogmatism. He denounced Macaulay's indifference to\nthe merits of the inferior cause, and desired more generous treatment of\nthe Jacobites and the French king. He deemed it hard that a science\nhappily delivered from the toils of religious passion should be involved\nin political, and made to pass from the sacristy to the lobby, by the\nmost brilliant example in literature. To the objection that one who\ncelebrates the victory of parliaments over monarchs, of democracy over\naristocracy, of liberty over authority, declares, not the tenets of a\nparty, but manifest destiny and the irrevocable decree, he would reply\nthat a narrow induction is the bane of philosophy, that the ways of\nProvidence are not inscribed on the surface of things, that religion,\nsocialism, militarism, and revolution possibly reserve a store of cogent\nsurprises for the economist, utilitarian, and whig.\n\nIn 1865 he was invited to prepare a new edition of his Church history.\nWhilst he was mustering the close ranks of folios which had satisfied a\ncentury of historians, the world had moved, and there was an increase of\nraw material to be measured by thousands of volumes. The archives which\nhad been sealed with seven seals had become as necessary to the serious\nstudent as his library. Every part of his studies had suffered\ntransformation, except the fathers, who had largely escaped the\ncrucible, and the canon law, which had only just been caught by the\nhistorical current. He had begun when Niebuhr was lecturing at Bonn and\nHegel at Berlin; before Tischendorf unfolded his first manuscript;\nbefore Baur discovered the Tuebingen hypothesis in the congregation of\nCorinth; before Rothe had planned his treatise on the primitive church,\nor Ranke had begun to pluck the plums for his modern popes. Guizot had\nnot founded the _Ecole des Chartes_, and the school of method was not\nyet opened at Berlin. The application of instruments of precision was\njust beginning, and what Prynne calls the heroic study of records had\nscarcely molested the ancient reign of lives and chronicles. None had\nworked harder at his science and at himself than Doellinger; and the\nchange around him was not greater than the change within. In his early\ncareer as a teacher of religion he had often shrunk from books which\nbore no stamp of orthodoxy. It was long before he read Sarpi or the\n_Lettres Provinciales_, or even Ranke's _Popes_, which appeared when he\nwas thirty-five, and which astonished him by the serene ease with which\na man who knew so much touched on such delicate ground. The book which\nhe had written in that state of mind, and with that conception of\nscience and religion, had only a prehistoric interest for its author. He\nrefused to reprint it, and declared that there was hardly a sentence fit\nto stand unchanged. He lamented that he had lost ten years of life in\ngetting his bearings, and in learning, unaided, the most difficult craft\nin the world. Those years of apprenticeship without a master were the\ntime spent on his _Kirchengeschichte_. The want of training remained. He\ncould impart knowledge better than the art of learning. Thousands of his\npupils have acquired connected views of religion passing through the\nages, and gathered, if they were intelligent, some notion of the meaning\nof history; but nobody ever learnt from him the mechanism by which it is\nwritten.\n\nBrougham advised the law-student to begin with Dante; and a\ndistinguished physician informs us that Gibbon, Grote, and Mill made him\nwhat he is. The men to whom Doellinger owed his historic insight and who\nmainly helped to develop and strengthen and direct his special faculty,\nwere not all of his own cast, or remarkable in the common description of\nliterary talent. The assistants were countless, but the masters were\nfew, and he looked up with extraordinary gratitude to men like Sigonius,\nAntonius Augustinus, Blondel, Petavius, Leibniz, Burke, and Niebuhr, who\nhad opened the passes for him as he struggled and groped in the\nillimitable forest.\n\nHe interrupted his work because he found the materials too scanty for\nthe later Middle Ages, and too copious for the Reformation. The\ndefective account of the Albigensian theology, which he had sent to one\nof his translators, never appeared in German. At Paris he searched the\nlibrary for the missing information, and he asked Resseguier to make\ninquiry for the records of the Inquisition in Languedoc, thus laying the\nfoundations of that _Sektengeschichte_ which he published fifty years\nlater. Munich offered such inexhaustible supplies for the Reformation\nthat his collections overran all bounds. He completed only that part of\nhis plan which included Lutheranism and the sixteenth century. The third\nvolume, published in 1848, containing the theology of the Reformation,\nis the most solid of his writings. He had miscalculated, not his\nresources, of which only a part had come into action, but the\npossibilities of concentration and compression. The book was left a\nfragment when he had to abandon his study for the Frankfort barricades.\n\nThe peculiarity of his treatment is that he contracts the Reformation\ninto a history of the doctrine of justification. He found that this and\nthis alone was the essential point in Luther's mind, that he made it the\nbasis of his argument, the motive of his separation, the root and\nprinciple of his religion. He believed that Luther was right in the\ncardinal importance he attributed to this doctrine in his system, and he\nin his turn recognised that it was the cause of all that followed, the\nsource of the reformer's popularity and success, the sole insurmountable\nobstacle to every scheme of restoration. It was also, for him, the\ncentre and the basis of his antagonism. That was the point that he\nattacked when he combated Protestantism, and he held all other elements\nof conflict cheap in comparison, deeming that they are not invariable,\nor not incurable, or not supremely serious. Apart from this, there was\nmuch in Protestantism that he admired, much in its effects for which he\nwas grateful. With the Lutheran view of imputation, Protestant and\nCatholic were separated by an abyss. Without it, there was no lasting\nreason why they should be separate at all. Against the communities that\nhold it he stood in order of battle, and believed that he could scarcely\nhit too hard. But he distinguished very broadly the religion of the\nreformers from the religion of Protestants. Theological science had\nmoved away from the symbolical books, the root dogma had been repudiated\nand contested by the most eminent Protestants, and it was an English\nbishop who wrote: \"Fuit haec doctrina jam a multis annis ipsissimum\nReformatae Ecclesiae opprobrium ac dedecus.--Est error non levis, error\nputidissimus.\" Since so many of the best writers resist or modify that\nwhich was the main cause, the sole ultimate cause, of disunion, it\ncannot be logically impossible to discover a reasonable basis for\ndiscussion. Therefore conciliation was always in his thoughts; even his\n_Reformation_ was a treatise on the conditions of reunion. He long\npurposed to continue it, in narrower limits, as a history of that\ncentral doctrine by which Luther meant his church to stand or fall, of\nthe reaction against it, and of its decline. In 1881, when Ritschl, the\nauthor of the chief work upon the subject, spent some days with\nDoellinger, he found him still full of these ideas, and possessing Luther\nat his fingers' ends.\n\nThis is the reason why Protestants have found him so earnest an opponent\nand so warm a friend. It was this that attracted him towards Anglicans,\nand made very many of them admire a Roman dignitary who knew the\nAnglo-Catholic library better than De Lugo or Ripalda. In the same\nspirit he said to Pusey: \"Tales cum sitis jam nostri estis,\" always\nspoke of Newman's _Justification_ as the greatest masterpiece of\ntheology that England has produced in a hundred years, and described\nBaxter and Wesley as the most eminent of English Protestants--meaning\nWesley as he was after 1st December 1767, and Baxter as the life-long\nopponent of that theory which was the source and the soul of the\nReformation. Several Englishmen who went to consult him--Hope Scott and\nArchdeacon Wilberforce--became Catholics. I know not whether he urged\nthem. Others there were, whom he did not urge, though his influence over\nthem might have been decisive. In a later letter to Pusey he wrote: \"I\nam convinced by reading your _Eirenicon_ that we are united inwardly in\nour religious convictions, although externally we belong to two\nseparated churches.\" He followed attentively the parallel movements that\nwent on in his own country, and welcomed with serious respect the\novertures which came to him, after 1856, from eminent historians. When\nthey were old men, he and Ranke, whom, in hot youth, there was much to\npart, lived on terms of mutual goodwill. Doellinger had pronounced the\ntheology of the _Deutsche Reformation_ slack and trivial, and Ranke at\none moment was offended by what he took for an attack on the popes, his\npatrimony. In 1865, after a visit to Munich, he allowed that in religion\nthere was no dispute between them, that he had no fault to find with the\nChurch as Doellinger understood it. He added that one of his colleagues,\na divine whose learning filled him with unwonted awe, held the same\nopinion. Doellinger's growing belief that an approximation of part of\nGermany to sentiments of conciliation was only a question of time, had\nmuch to do with his attitude in Church questions after the year 1860. If\nhistory cannot confer faith or virtue, it can clear away the\nmisconceptions and misunderstandings that turn men against one another.\nWith the progress of incessant study and meditation his judgment on many\npoints underwent revision; but with regard to the Reformation the change\nwas less than he supposed. He learnt to think more favourably of the\nreligious influence of Protestantism, and of its efficacy in the defence\nof Christianity; but he thought as before of the spiritual consequences\nof Lutheranism proper. When people said of Luther that he does not come\nwell out of his matrimonial advice to certain potentates, to Henry and\nto Philip, of his exhortations to exterminate the revolted peasantry, of\nhis passage from a confessor of toleration to a teacher of intolerance,\nhe would not have the most powerful conductor of religion that\nChristianity has produced in eighteen centuries condemned for two pages\nin a hundred volumes. But when he had refused the test of the weakest\nlink, judging the man by his totals, he was not less severe on his\ntheological ethics.\n\n   Meinerseits habe ich noch eine andre schwere Anklage gegen ihn zu\n   erheben, naemlich die, dass er durch seine falsche Imputationslehre\n   das sittlich-religioese Bewusstseyn der Menschen auf zwei Jahrhunderte\n   hinaus verwirrt und corrumpirt hat (3rd July 1888).\n\nThe revolution of 1848, during which he did not hold his professorship,\nbrought him forward uncongenially in active public life, and gave him\nthe means of telling the world his view of the constitution and policy\nof the Church, and the sense and limits of liability in which he gave\nhis advocacy. When lecturing on canon law he was accustomed to dwell on\nthe strict limit of all ecclesiastical authority, admitting none but\nspiritual powers, and invoking the maxims of pontiffs who professed\nthemselves guardians, not masters, of the established legislation--\"Canones\necclesiae solvere non possumus, qui custodes canonum sumus.\" Acting on\nthese principles, in the Paulskirche, and at Ratisbon, he vindicated Rome\nagainst the reproach of oppression, argued that society can only gain by\nthe emancipation of the Church, as it claims no superiority over the State,\nand that both Gallicans and Jesuits are out of date. Addressing the\nbishops of Germany in secret session at Wuerzburg, he exhorted them to\navail themselves fully of an order of things which was better than the old,\nand to make no professions of unconditional allegiance. He told them that\nfreedom is the breath of the Catholic life, that it belongs to the Church\nof God by right divine, and that whatever they claimed must be claimed for\nothers.\n\nFrom these discourses, in which the scholar abandoned the details by\nwhich science advances for the general principles of the popular orator,\nthe deductions of liberalism proceed as surely as the revolution from\nthe title-page of Sieyes. It should seem that the key to his career lies\nthere. It was natural to associate him with the men whom the early\npromise of a reforming pope inspired to identify the cause of free\nsocieties with the papacy which had Rosmini for an adviser, Ventura for\na preacher, Gioberti for a prophet, and to conclude that he thus became\na trusted representative, until the revolving years found him the\nchampion of a vanished cause, and the Syllabus exposed the illusion and\nbore away his ideal. Harless once said of him that no good could be\nexpected from a man surrounded by a ring of liberals. When Doellinger\nmade persecution answer both for the decline of Spain and the fall of\nPoland, he appeared to deliver the common creed of Whigs; and he did not\nprotest against the American who called him the acknowledged head of the\nliberal Catholics. His hopefulness in the midst of the movement of 1848,\nhis ready acquiescence in the fall of ancient powers and institutions,\nhis trust in Rome, and in the abstract rights of Germans, suggested a\nreminiscence of the _Avenir_ in 1830.\n\nLamennais, returning with Montalembert after his appeal to Rome, met\nLacordaire at Munich, and during a banquet given in their honour he\nlearnt, privately, that he was condemned. The three friends spent that\nafternoon in Doellinger's company; and it was after he had left them that\nLamennais produced the encyclical and said: _Dieu a parle_. Montalembert\nsoon returned, attracted as much by Munich art as by religion or\nliterature. The fame of the Bavarian school of Catholic thought spread\nin France among those who belonged to the wider circles of the _Avenir_;\nand priests and laymen followed, as to a scientific shrine. In the\n_Memoires d'un Royaliste_ Falloux has preserved, with local colour, the\nspirit of that pilgrimage:\n\n   Munich lui fut indique comme le foyer d'une grande renovation\n   religieuse et artistique. Quels nobles et ardents entretiens, quelle\n   passion pour l'Eglise et pour sa cause! Rien n'a plus ressemble aux\n   discours d'un portique chretien que les apologies enflammees du vieux\n   Goerres, les savantes deductions de Doellinger, la verve originale de\n   Brentano.\n\nRio, who was the earliest of the travellers, describes Doellinger as he\nfound him in 1830:\n\n   Par un privilege dont il serait difficile de citer un autre exemple,\n   il avait la passion des etudes theologiques comme s'il n'avait ete\n   que pretre, et la passion des etudes litteraires appliquees aux\n   auteurs anciens et modernes comme s'il n'avait ete que litterateur; a\n   quoi il faut ajouter un autre don qu'il y aurait ingratitude a\n   oublier, celui d'une exposition lucide, patiente et presque\n   affectueuse, comme s'il n'avait accumule tant de connaissances que\n   pour avoir le plaisir de les communiquer.\n\nFor forty years he remained in correspondence with many of these early\nfriends, who, in the educational struggle which ended with the ministry\nof Falloux in 1850, revived the leading maxims of the rejected master.\nAs Lacordaire said, on his deathbed: \"La parole de l'Avenir avait germe\nde son tombeau comme une cendre feconde.\" Doellinger used to visit his\nformer visitors in various parts of France, and at Paris he attended the\nsalon of Madame Swetchine. One day, at the seminary, he inquired who\nwere the most promising students; Dupanloup pointed out a youth, who was\nthe hope of the Church, and whose name was Ernest Renan.\n\nAlthough the men who were drawn to him in this way formed the largest\nand best-defined cluster with which he came in contact, there was more\nprivate friendship than mutual action or consultation between them. The\nunimpassioned German, who had no taste for ideas released from\ncontrolling fact, took little pleasure in the impetuous declamation of\nthe Breton, and afterwards pronounced him inferior to Loyson. Neither of\nthe men who were in the confidence of both has intimated that he made\nany lasting impression on Lamennais, who took leave of him without\ndiscussing the action of Rome. Doellinger never sought to renew\nacquaintance with Lacordaire, when he had become the most important man\nin the church of France. He would have a prejudice to overcome against\nhim whom Circourt called the most ignorant man in the Academy, who\nbelieved that Erasmus ended his days at Rotterdam, unable to choose\nbetween Rome and Wittemberg, and that the Irish obtained through\nO'Connell the right to worship in their own way. He saw more of\nDupanloup, without feeling, as deeply as Renan, the rare charm of the\ncombative prelate. To an exacting and reflective scholar, to whom even\nthe large volume of heavy erudition in which Rosmini defended the\n_Cinque Piaghe_ seemed superficial, there was incongruity in the\nattention paid to one of whom he heard that he promoted the council,\nthat he took St. Boniface for St Wilfrid, and that he gave the memorable\nadvice: _Surtout mefiez-vous des sources_. After a visit from the Bishop\nof Orleans he sat down in dismay to compose the most elementary of his\nbooks. Seeing the inferiority of Falloux as a historian, he never\nappreciated the strong will and cool brain of the statesman who overawed\nTocqueville. Eckstein, the obscure but thoughtful originator of much\nliberal feeling among his own set, encouraged him in the habit of\ndepreciating the attainments of the French clergy, which was confirmed\nby the writings of the most eminent among them, Darboy, and lasted until\nthe appearance of Duchesne. The politics of Montalembert were so heavily\ncharged with conservatism, that in defiance of such advisers as\nLacordaire, Ravignan, and Dupanloup, he pronounced in favour of the\nauthor of the _coup d'etat_, saying: \"Je suis pour l'autorite contre la\nrevolte\"; and boasted that, in entering the Academy he had attacked the\nRevolution, not of '93 but '89, and that Guizot, who received him, had\nnothing to say in reply. There were many things, human and divine, on\nwhich they could not feel alike; but as the most urgent, eloquent, and\npersevering of his Catholic friends, gifted with knowledge and\nexperience of affairs, and dwelling in the focus, it may be that on one\ncritical occasion, when religion and politics intermingled, he\ninfluenced the working of Doellinger's mind. But the plausible reading of\nhis life which explains it by his connection with such public men as\nMontalembert, De Decker, and Mr. Gladstone is profoundly untrue; and\nthose who deem him a liberal in any scientific use of the term, miss the\nkeynote of his work.\n\nThe political party question has to be considered here, because, in\nfact, it is decisive. A liberal who thinks his thought out to the end\nwithout flinching is forced to certain conclusions which colour to the\nroot every phase and scene of universal history. He believes in upward\nprogress, because it is only recent times that have striven\ndeliberately, and with a zeal according to knowledge, for the increase\nand security of freedom. He is not only tolerant of error in religion,\nbut is specially indulgent to the less dogmatic forms of Christianity,\nto the sects which have restrained the churches. He is austere in\njudging the past, imputing not error and ignorance only, but guilt and\ncrime, to those who, in the dark succession of ages, have resisted and\nretarded the growth of liberty, which he identifies with the cause of\nmorality, and the condition of the reign of conscience. Doellinger never\nsubjected his mighty vision of the stream of time to correction\naccording to the principles of this unsympathising philosophy, never\nreconstituted the providential economy in agreement with the Whig\nTheodicee. He could understand the Zoroastrian simplicity of history in\nblack and white, for he wrote: \"obgleich man allerdings sagen kann, das\ntiefste Thema der Weltgeschichte sei der Kampf der Knechtschaft oder\nGebundenheit, mit der Freiheit, auf dem intellectuellen, religioesen,\npolitischen und socialen Gebiet.\" But the scene which lay open before\nhis mind was one of greater complexity, deeper design, and infinite\nintellect. He imagined a way to truth through error, and outside the\nChurch, not through unbelief and the diminished reign of Christ.\nLacordaire in the cathedral pulpit offering his thanks to Voltaire for\nthe good gift of religious toleration, was a figure alien to his spirit.\nHe never substituted politics for religion as the test of progress, and\nnever admitted that they have anything like the dogmatic certainty and\nsovereignty of religious, or of physical, science. He had all the\nliberality that consists of common sense, justice, humanity,\nenlightenment, the wisdom of Canning or Guizot. But revolution, as the\nbreach of continuity, as the renunciation of history, was odious to him,\nand he not only refused to see method in the madness of Marat, or\ndignity in the end of Robespierre, but believed that the best measures\nof Leopold, the most intelligent reformer in the era of repentant\nmonarchy, were vitiated and frustrated by want of adaptation to custom.\nCommon party divisions represented nothing scientific to his mind; and\nhe was willing, like De Quincey, to accept them as corresponding halves\nof a necessary whole. He wished that he knew half as much as his\nneighbour, Mrs. Somerville; but he possessed no natural philosophy, and\nnever acquired the emancipating habit which comes from a life spent in\nsecuring progress by shutting one's eyes to the past. \"Alle Wissenschaft\nsteht und ruht auf ihrer historischen Entwicklung, sie lebt von ihrer\ntraditionellen Vergangenheit, wie der Baum von seiner Wurzel.\"\n\nHe was moved, not by the gleam of reform after the conclave of Pius IX.,\nbut by Pius VII. The impression made upon him by the character of that\npope, and his resistance to Napoleon, had much to do with his resolution\nto become a priest. He took orders in the Church in the days of revival,\nas it issued from oppression and the eclipse of hierarchy; and he\nentered its service in the spirit of Sailer, Cheverus, and Doyle. The\nmark of that time never left him. When Newman asked him what he would\nsay of the Pope's journey to Paris, for the coronation of the emperor,\nhe hardly recognised the point of the question. He opposed, in 1853, the\nrenewal of that precedent; but to the end he never felt what people mean\nwhen they remark on the proximity of Notre-Dame to Vincennes.\n\nDoellinger was too much absorbed in distant events to be always a close\nobserver of what went on near him; and he was, therefore, not so much\ninfluenced by contact with contemporary history as men who were less\nentirely at home in other centuries. He knew about all that could be\nknown of the ninth: in the nineteenth his superiority deserted him.\nThough he informed himself assiduously his thoughts were not there. He\ncollected from Hormayr, Radowitz, Capponi, much secret matter of the\nlast generation; and where Brewer had told him about Oxford, and\nPlantier about Louis Philippe, there were landmarks, as when Knoblecher,\nthe missionary, set down Krophi and Mophi on his map of Africa. He\ndeferred, at once, to the competent authority. He consulted his able\ncolleague Hermann on all points of political economy, and used his\nadvice when he wrote about England. Having satisfied himself, he would\nnot reopen these questions, when, after Hermann's death, he spent some\ntime in the society of Roscher, a not less eminent economist, and of all\nmen the one who most resembled himself in the historian's faculty of\nrethinking the thoughts and realising the knowledge, the ignorance, the\nexperience, the illusions of a given time.\n\nHe had lived in many cities, and had known many important men; he had\nsat in three parliamentary assemblies, had drawn constitutional\namendments, had been consulted upon the policy and the making of\nministries, and had declined political office; but as an authority on\nrecent history he was scarcely equal to himself. Once it became his duty\nto sketch the character of a prince whom he had known. There was a\nreport that this sovereign had only been dissuaded from changing his\nreligion and abolishing the constitution by the advice of an archbishop\nand of a famous parliamentary jurist; and the point of the story was\nthat the Protestant doctrinaire had prevented the change of religion,\nand the archbishop had preserved the constitution. It was too early to\nelucidate these court mysteries; instead of which there is a remarkable\nconversation about religion, wherein it is not always clear whether the\nprince is speaking, or the professor, or Schelling.\n\nAlthough he had been translated into several languages and was widely\nknown in his own country, he had not yet built himself a European name.\nAt Oxford, in 1851, when James Mozley asked whom he would like to see,\nhe said, the men who had written in the _Christian Remembrancer_ on\nDante and Luther. Mozley was himself one of the two, and he introduced\nhim to the other at Oriel. After thirty-two years, when the writer on\nDante occupied a high position in the Church and had narrowly escaped\nthe highest, that visit was returned. But he had no idea that he had\nonce received Doellinger in his college rooms and hardly believed it when\ntold. In Germany, the serried learning of the _Reformation_, the\nauthor's energy and decisiveness in public assemblies, caused him to\nstand forth as an accepted spokesman, and, for a season, threw back the\nreticent explorer, steering between the shallows of anger and affection.\n\nIn that stage the _Philosophumena_ found him, and induced him to write a\nbook of controversy in the shape of history. Here was an anonymous\nperson who, as Newman described it, \"calls one pope a weak and venal\ndunce, and another a sacrilegious swindler, an infamous convict, and an\nheresiarch _ex cathedra_.\" In the Munich Faculty there was a divine who\naffirmed that the Church would never get over it. Doellinger undertook to\nvindicate the insulted See of Rome; and he was glad of the opportunity\nto strike a blow at three conspicuous men of whom he thought ill in\npoint both of science and religion. He spoke of Gieseler as the flattest\nand most leathern of historians; he accused Baur of frivolity and want\nof theological conviction; and he wished that he knew as many\ncircumlocutions for untruth as there are Arabian synonyms for a camel,\nthat he might do justice to Bunsen without violation of courtesy. The\nweight of the new testimony depended on the discovery of the author.\nAdversaries had assigned it to Hippolytus, the foremost European writer\nof the time, venerated as a saint and a father of the Church. Doellinger\nthought them right, and he justified his sincerity by giving further\nreasons for a conclusion which made his task formidable even for such\ndexterity as his own. Having thus made a concession which was not\nabsolutely inevitable, he resisted the inference with such richness of\nillustration that the fears of the doubting colleague were appeased. In\nFrance, by Pitra's influence, the book was reviewed without making known\nthat it supported the authorship of Hippolytus, which is still disputed\nby some impartial critics, and was always rejected by Newman.\n_Hippolytus und Kallistus_, the high-water mark of Doellinger's official\nassent and concurrence, came out in 1853. His next book showed the ebb.\n\nHe came originally from the romantic school, where history was\nhoneycombed with imagination and conjecture; and the first important\nbook he gave to a pupil in 1850 was Creuzer's _Mythology_. In 1845 he\ndenounced the rationalism of Lobeck in investigating the _Mysteries_;\nbut in 1857 he preferred him as a guide to those who proceed by analogy.\nWith increase of knowledge had come increase of restraining caution and\nsagacity. The critical acumen was not greater in the _Vorhalle_ that\nwhen he wrote on the _Philosophumena_, but instead of being employed in\na chosen cause, upon fixed lines, for welcome ends, it is applied\nimpartially. Ernst von Lasaulx, a man of rich and noble intellect, was\nlecturing next door on the philosophy and religion of Greece, and\neverybody heard about his indistinct mixture of dates and authorities,\nand the spell which his unchastened idealism cast over students.\nLasaulx, who brilliantly carried on the tradition of Creuzer, who had\ntasted of the mythology of Schelling, who was son-in-law to Baader and\nnephew to Goerres, wrote a volume on the fall of Hellenism which he\nbrought in manuscript and read to Doellinger at a sitting. The effect on\nthe dissenting mind of the hearer was a warning; and there is reason to\ndate from those two hours in 1853 a more severe use of materials, and a\nstricter notion of the influence which the end of an inquiry may\nlawfully exert on the pursuit of it.\n\n_Heidenthum und Judenthum_, which came out in 1857, gave Lasaulx his\nrevenge. It is the most positive and self-denying of histories, and owes\nnothing to the fancy. The author refused the aid of Scandinavia to\nillustrate German mythology, and he was rewarded long after, when\nCaspari of Christiania and Conrad Maurer met at his table and confirmed\nthe discoveries of Bugge. But the account of Paganism ends with a\nsignificant parallel. In December 69 a torch flung by a soldier burnt\nthe temple on the Capitol to the ground. In August 70 another Roman\nsoldier set fire to the temple on Mount Sion. The two sanctuaries\nperished within a year, making way for the faith of men still hidden in\nthe back streets of Rome. When the Hellenist read this passage it struck\nhim deeply. Then he declared that it was hollow. All was over at\nJerusalem; but at Rome the ruin was restored, and the smoke of sacrifice\nwent up for centuries to come from the altar of Capitoline Jove.\n\nIn this work, designed as an introduction to Christian history, the\napologist betrays himself when he says that no Greek ever objected to\nslavery, and when, out of 730 pages on paganism, half a page is allotted\nto the moral system of Aristotle. That his Aristotelian chapter was\nweak, the author knew; but he said that it was not his text to make more\nof it. He did not mean that a Christian divine may be better employed\nthan in doing honour to a heathen; but, having to narrate events and the\naction of causes, he regarded Christianity more as an organism employing\nsacramental powers than as a body of speculative ideas. To cast up the\ntotal of moral and religious knowledge attained by Seneca, Epictetus,\nand Plutarch, to measure the line and rate of progress since Socrates,\nto compare the point reached by Hermas and Justin, is an inquiry of the\nhighest interest for writers yet to come. But the quantitative\ndifference of acquired precept between the later pagan and the early\nChristian is not the key to the future. The true problem is to expose\nthe ills and errors which Christ, the Healer, came to remove. The\nmeasure must be taken from the depth of evil from which Christianity had\nto rescue mankind, and its history is more than a continued history of\nphilosophical theories. Newman, who sometimes agreed with Doellinger in\nthe letter, but seldom in the spirit, and who distrusted him as a man in\nwhom the divine lived at the mercy of the scholar, and whose burden of\nsuperfluous learning blunted the point and the edge of his mind, so much\nliked what he heard of this book that, being unable to read it, he had\nit translated at the Oratory.\n\nThe work thus heralded never went beyond the first volume, completed in\nthe autumn of 1860, which was received by the _Kirchenzeitung_ of\nBerlin as the most acceptable narrative of the founding of Christianity,\nand as the largest concession ever made by a Catholic divine. The\nauthor, following the ancient ways, and taking, with Reuss, the New\nTestament as it stands, made no attempt to establish the position\nagainst modern criticism. Up to this, prescription and tradition held\nthe first place in his writings, and formed his vantage-ground in all\ncontroversy. His energy in upholding the past as the rule and measure of\nthe future distinguished him even among writers of his own communion. In\n_Christenthum und Kirche_ he explained his theory of development, under\nwhich flag the notion of progress penetrates into theology, and which he\nheld as firmly as the balancing element of perpetuity: \"In dem Maass als\ndogmenhistorische Studien mehr getrieben werden, wird die absolute\ninnere Nothwendigkeit und Wahrheit der Sache immer allegingr\neinleuchten.\" He conceived no bounds to the unforeseen resources of\nChristian thought and faith. A philosopher in whose works he would not\nhave expected to find the scientific expression of his own idea, has a\npassage bearing close analogy to what he was putting forward in 1861:\n\n   It is then in the change to a higher state of form or composition\n   that development differs from growth. We must carefully distinguish\n   development from mere increase; it is the acquiring, not of greater\n   bulk, but of new forms and structures, which are adapted to higher\n   conditions of existence.\n\nIt is the distinction which Uhhorn draws between the terms _Entfaltung_\nand _Entwickelung_. Just then, after sixteen years spent in the Church\nof Rome, Newman was inclined to guard and narrow his theory. On the one\nhand he taught that the enactments and decisions of ecclesiastical law\nare made on principles and by virtue of prerogatives which _jam antea\nlatitavere_ in the Church of the apostles and fathers. But he thought\nthat a divine of the second century on seeing the Roman catechism, would\nhave recognised his own belief in it, without surprise, as soon as he\nunderstood its meaning. He once wrote: \"If I have said more than this,\nI think I have not worked out my meaning, and was confused--whether the\nminute facts of history will bear me out in this view, I leave to others\nto determine.\" Doellinger would have feared to adopt a view for its own\nsake, without knowing how it would be borne out by the minute facts of\nhistory. His own theory of development had not the same ingenious\nsimplicity, and he thought Newman's brilliant book unsound in detail.\nBut he took high ground in asserting the undeviating fidelity of\nCatholicism to its principle. In this, his last book on the Primitive\nChurch, as in his early lectures, he claims the unswerving unity of\nfaith as a divine prerogative. In a memorable passage of the _Symbolik_\nMoehler had stated that there is no better security than the law which\npervades human society, which preserves harmony and consistency in\nnational character, which makes Lutheranism perpetually true to Luther,\nand Islamism to the Koran.\n\nSpeaking in the name of his own university, the rector described him as\na receptive genius. Part of his career displays a quality of\nassimilation, acquiescence, and even adaptation, not always consistent\nwith superior originality or intense force of character. His\n_Reformation_, the strongest book, with the _Symbolik_, which Catholics\nhad produced in the century, was laid down on known lines, and scarcely\neffected so much novelty and change as the writings of Kampschulte and\nKolde. His book on the first age of the Church takes the critical points\nas settled, without special discussion. He appeared to receive impulse\nand direction, limit and colour, from his outer life. His importance was\nachieved by the force within. Circumstances only conspired to mould a\ngiant of commonplace excellence and average ideas, and their influence\non his view of history might long be traced. No man of like\nspirituality, of equal belief in the supreme dignity of conscience,\nsystematically allowed as much as he did for the empire of chance\nsurroundings and the action of home, and school, and place of worship\nupon conduct. He must have known that his own mind and character as an\nhistorian was not formed by effort and design. From early impressions,\nand a life spent, to his fiftieth year, in a rather unvaried\nprofessional circle, he contracted homely habits in estimating objects\nof the greater world; and his imagination was not prone to vast\nproportions and wide horizons. He inclined to apply the rules and\nobservation of domestic life to public affairs, to reduce the level of\nthe heroic and sublime; and history, in his hands, lost something both\nin terror and in grandeur. He acquired his art in the long study of\nearlier times, where materials are scanty. All that can be known of\nCaesar or Charlemagne, or Gregory VII., would hold in a dozen volumes; a\nlibrary would not be sufficient for Charles V. or Lewis XVI. Extremely\nfew of the ancients are really known to us in detail, as we know\nSocrates, or Cicero, or St. Augustine. But in modern times, since\nPetrarca, there are at least two thousand actors on the public stage\nwhom we see by the revelations of private correspondence. Besides\nletters that were meant to be burnt, there are a man's secret diaries,\nhis autobiography and table-talk, the recollections of his friends,\nself-betraying notes on the margins of books, the report of his trial if\nhe is a culprit, and the evidence for beatification if he is a saint.\nHere we are on a different footing, and we practise a different art when\ndealing with Phocion or Dunstan, or with Richelieu or Swift. In one case\nwe remain perforce on the surface of character, which we have not the\nmeans of analysing: we have to be content with conjecture, with probable\nexplanations and obvious motives. We must constantly allow the benefit\nof the doubt, and reserve sentence. The science of character comes in\nwith modern history. Doellinger had lived too long in the ages during\nwhich men are seen mostly in outline, and never applied an historical\npsychology distinct from that of private experience. Great men are\nsomething different from an enlarged repetition of average and familiar\ntypes, and the working and motive of their minds is in many instances\nthe exact contrary of ordinary men, living to avoid contingencies of\ndanger, and pain, and sacrifice, and the weariness of constant thinking\nand far-seeing precaution.\n\n   We are apt to judge extraordinary men by our own standard, that is to\n   say, we often suppose them to possess, in an extraordinary degree,\n   those qualities which we are conscious of in ourselves or others.\n   This is the easiest way of conceiving their characters, but not the\n   truest They differ in kind rather than in degree.\n\nWe cannot understand Cromwell or Shaftesbury, Sunderland or Penn, by\nstudies made in the parish. The study of intricate and subtle character\nwas not habitual with Doellinger, and the result was an extreme dread of\nunnecessary condemnation. He resented being told that Ferdinand I. and\nII., that Henry III. and Lewis XIII. were, in the coarse terms of common\nlife, assassins; that Elizabeth tried to have Mary made away with, and\nthat Mary, in matters of that kind, had no greater scruples; that\nWilliam III. ordered the extirpation of a clan, and rewarded the\nmurderers as he had rewarded those of De Witt; that Lewis XIV. sent a\nman to kill him, and James II. was privy to the Assassination Plot. When\nhe met men less mercifully given than himself, he said that they were\nhanging judges with a Malthusian propensity to repress the growth of\npopulation. This indefinite generosity did not disappear when he had\nlong outgrown its early cause. It was revived, and his view of history\nwas deeply modified, in the course of the great change in his attitude\nin the Church which took place between the years 1861 and 1867.\n\nDoellinger used to commemorate his visit to Rome in 1857 as an epoch of\nemancipation. He had occasionally been denounced; and a keen eye had\ndetected latent pantheism in his _Vorhalle_, but he had not been\nformally censured. If he had once asserted the value of nationality in\nthe Church, he was vehement against it in religion; and if he had joined\nin deprecating the dogmatic decree in 1854, he was silent afterwards. By\nProtestants he was still avoided as the head and front of offending\nultramontanism; and when the historical commission was instituted at\nMunich, by disciples of the Berlin school, he was passed over at first,\nand afterwards opposed. When public matters took him to Berlin in 1857,\nhe sought no intercourse with the divines of the faculty. The common\nidea of his _Reformation_ was expressed by Kaulbach in a drawing which\nrepresented the four chief reformers riding on one horse, pursued by a\nscavenger with the unmistakable features of their historian. He was\nreceived with civility at Rome, if not with cordiality. The pope sent to\nCesena for a manuscript which it was reported that he wished to consult;\nand his days were spent profitably between the Minerva and the Vatican,\nwhere he was initiated in the mysteries of Galileo's tower. It was his\nfortune to have for pilot and instructor a prelate classified in the\npigeon-holes of the Wilhelmsstrasse as the chief agitator against the\nState, \"dessen umfangreiches Wissen noch durch dessen Feinheit und\ngeistige Gewandtheit uebertroffen wird.\" He was welcomed by Passaglia and\nSchrader at the Collegio Romano, and enjoyed the privilege of examining\nSan Callisto with De Rossi for his guide. His personal experience was\nagreeable, though he strove unsuccessfully to prevent the condemnation\nof two of his colleagues by the Index.\n\nThere have been men connected with him who knew Rome in his time, and\nwhose knowledge moved them to indignation and despair. One bishop\nassured him that the Christian religion was extinct there, and only\nsurvived in its forms; and an important ecclesiastic on the spot wrote:\n_Delenda est Carthago_. The archives of the Culturkampf contain a\ndespatch from a Protestant statesman sometime his friend, urging his\ngovernment to deal with the Papacy as they would deal with Dahomey.\nDoellinger's impression on his journey was very different. He did not\ncome away charged with visions of scandal in the spiritual order, of\nsuffering in the temporal, or of tyranny in either. He was never in\ncontact with the sinister side of things. Theiner's _Life of Clement the\nFourteenth_ failed to convince him, and he listened incredulously to\nhis indictment of the Jesuits. Eight years later Theiner wrote to him\nthat he hoped they would now agree better on that subject than when they\ndiscussed it in Rome. \"Ich freue mich, dass Sie jetzt erkennen, dass\nmein Urtheil ueber die Jesuiten und ihr Wirken gerecht war.--Im kommenden\nJahr, so Gott will, werden wir uns hoffentlich besser verstehen als im\nJahr 1857.\" He thought the governing body unequal to the task of ruling\nboth Church and State; but it was the State that seemed to him to suffer\nfrom the combination. He was anxious about the political future, not\nabout the future of religion. The persuasion that government by priests\ncould not maintain itself in the world as it is, grew in force and\ndefiniteness as he meditated at home on the things he had seen and\nheard. He was despondent and apprehensive; but he had no suspicion of\nwhat was then so near. In the summer of 1859, as the sequel of Solferino\nbegan to unfold itself, he thought of making his observations known. In\nNovember a friend wrote: \"Je ne me dissimule aucune des miseres de tout\nordre qui vous ont frappe a Rome.\" For more than a year he remained\nsilent and uncertain, watching the use France would make of the\nirresistible authority acquired by the defeat of Austria and the\ncollapse of government in Central Italy.\n\nThe war of 1859, portending danger to the temporal power, disclosed\ndivided counsels. The episcopate supported the papal sovereignty, and a\nvoluntary tribute, which in a few years took shape in tens of millions,\npoured into the treasury of St. Peter. A time followed during which the\nPapacy endeavoured, by a series of connected measures, to preserve its\npolitical authority through the aid of its spiritual. Some of the most\nenlightened Catholics, Dupanloup and Montalembert, proclaimed a sort of\nholy war. Some of the most enlightened Protestants, Guizot and Leo,\ndefended the Roman government, as the most legitimate, venerable, and\nnecessary of governments. In Italy there were ecclesiastics like\nLiverani, Tosti, Capecelatro, who believed with Manzoni that there\ncould be no deliverance without unity, or calculated that political\nloss might be religious gain. Passaglia, the most celebrated Jesuit\nliving, and a confidential adviser of the pope, both in dogma and in the\npreparation of the Syllabus, until Perrone refused to meet him, quitted\nthe Society, and then fled from Rome, leaving the Inquisition in\npossession of his papers, in order to combat the use of theology in\ndefence of the temporal power. Forty thousand priests, he said, publicly\nor privately agreed with him; and the diplomatists reported the names of\nnine cardinals who were ready to make terms with Italian unity, of which\nthe pope himself said: \"Ce serait un beau reve.\" In this country, Newman\ndid not share the animosity of conservatives against Napoleon III. and\nhis action in Italy. When the flood, rising, reached the papal throne,\nhe preserved an embarrassed silence, refusing, in spite of much\nsolicitation, to commit himself even in private. An impatient M.P. took\nthe train down to Edgbaston, and began, trying to draw him: \"What times\nwe live in, Father Newman! Look at all that is going on in\nItaly.\"--\"Yes, indeed! And look at China too, and New Zealand!\"\nLacordaire favoured the cause of the Italians more openly, in spite of\nhis Paris associates. He hoped, by federation, to save the interests of\nthe Holy See, but he was reconciled to the loss of provinces, and he\nrequired religious liberty at Rome. Lamoriciere was defeated in\nSeptember 1860, and in February the fortress of Gaeta, which had become\nthe last Roman outwork, fell. Then Lacordaire, disturbed in his\nreasoning by the logic of events, and by an earnest appeal to his\npriestly conscience, as his biographer says: \"ebranle un moment par une\nlettre eloquente,\" broke away from his friends:--\n\n   Que Montalembert, notre ami commun, ne voie pas dans ce qui se passe\n   en Italie, sauf le mal, un progres sensible dans ce que nous avons\n   toujours cru le bien de l'eglise, cela tient a sa nature passionnee.\n   Ce qui le domine aujourd'hui c'est la haine du gouvernement\n   francais.--Dieu se sert de tout, meme du despotisme, meme de\n   l'egoisme; et il y a meme des choses qu'il ne peut accomplir par des\n   mains tout a fait pures.--Qu'y puis-je? Me declarer contre l'Italie\n   parce que ses chaines tombent mal a propos? Non assurement: je laisse\n   a d'autres une passion aussi profonde, et j'aime mieux accepter ce\n   que j'estime un bien de quelque part qu'il vienne.--Il est vrai que\n   la situation temporelle du Pape souffre presentement de la liberation\n   de l'Italie, et peut-etre en souffrira-t-elle encore assez longtemps:\n   mais c'est un malheur qui a aussi ses fins dans la politique\n   mysterieuse de la Providence. Souffrir n'est pas mourir, c'est\n   quelquefois expier et s'eclairer.\n\nThis was written on 22nd February 1861. In April Doellinger spoke on the\nRoman question in the Odeon at Munich, and explained himself more fully\nin the autumn, in the most popular of all his books.\n\nThe argument of _Kirche und Kirchen_ was, that the churches which are\nwithout the pope drift into many troubles, and maintain themselves at a\nmanifest disadvantage, whereas the church which energetically preserves\nthe principle of unity has a vast superiority which would prevail, but\nfor its disabling and discrediting failure in civil government. That\ngovernment seemed to him as legitimate as any in the world, and so\nneedful to those for whose sake it was instituted, that if it should be\noverthrown, it would, by irresistible necessity, be restored. Those for\nwhose sake it was instituted were, not the Roman people, but the\ncatholic world. That interest, while it lasted, was so sacred, that no\nsacrifice was too great to preserve it, not even the exclusion of the\nclerical order from secular office.\n\nThe book was an appeal to Catholics to save the papal government by the\nonly possible remedy, and to rescue the Roman people from falling under\nwhat the author deemed a tyranny like that of the Convention. He had\nacquired his politics in the atmosphere of 1847, from the potential\nliberality of men like Radowitz, who declared that he would postpone\nevery political or national interest to that of the Church, Capponi, the\nlast Italian federalist, and Tocqueville, the minister who occupied\nRome. His object was not materially different from that of Antonelli and\nMerode, but he sought it by exposing the faults of the papal government\nduring several centuries, and the hopelessness of all efforts to save it\nfrom the Revolution unless reformed. He wrote to an English minister\nthat it could not be our policy that the head of the Catholic Church\nshould be subject to a foreign potentate:--\n\n   Das harte Wort, mit welchem Sie im Parlamente den Stab ueber Rom\n   gebrochen haben--_hopelessly incurable_, oder _incorrigible_,--kann\n   ich mir nicht aneignen; ich hoffe vielmehr, wie ich es in dem Buche\n   dargelegt habe, das Gegentheil. An die Dauerhaftigkeit eines ganz\n   Italien umfassenden Piemontesisch-Italiaenischen Reiches glaube ich\n   nicht.--Inzwischen troeste ich mich mit dem Gedanken, dass in Rom\n   zuletzt doch _vexatio dabit intellectum_, und dann wird noch alles\n   gut werden.\n\nTo these grateful vaticinations his correspondent replied:--\n\n   You have exhibited the gradual departure of the government in the\n   states of the church from all those conditions which made it\n   tolerable to the sense and reason of mankind, and have, I think,\n   completely justified, in principle if not in all the facts, the\n   conduct of those who have determined to do away with it.\n\nThe policy of exalting the spiritual authority though at the expense of\nsacrifices in the temporal, the moderation even in the catalogue of\nfaults, the side blow at the Protestants, filling more than half the\nvolume, disarmed for a moment the resentment of outraged Rome. The Pope,\non a report from Theiner, spoke of the book as one that might do good.\nOthers said that it was pointless, that its point was not where the\nauthor meant it to be, that the handle was sharper than the blade. It\nwas made much more clear that the Pope had governed badly than that\nRussia or Great Britain would gain by his supremacy. The cold analysis,\nthe diagnosis by the bedside of the sufferer, was not the work of an\nobserver dazzled by admiration or blinded by affection. It was a step, a\nfirst unconscious, unpremeditated step, in the process of detachment.\nThe historian here began to prevail over the divine, and to judge Church\nmatters by a law which was not given from the altar. It was the outcome\nof a spirit which had been in him from the beginning. His English\ntranslator had uttered a mild protest against his severe treatment of\npopes. His censure of the Reformation had been not as that of Bossuet,\nbut as that of Baxter and Bull. In 1845 Mr. Gladstone remarked that he\nwould answer every objection, but never proselytised. In 1848 he rested\nthe claims of the Church on the common law, and bade the hierarchy\nremember that national character is above free will: \"Die Nationalitaet\nist etwas der Freiheit des menschlichen Willens entruecktes,\ngeheimnissvolles und in ihrem letzen Grunde selbst etwas von Gott\ngewolltes.\" In his _Hippolytus_ he began by surrendering the main point,\nthat a man who so vilified the papacy might yet be an undisputed saint.\nIn the _Vorhalle_ he flung away a favourite argument, by avowing that\npaganism developed by its own lines and laws, untouched by Christianity,\nuntil the second century; and as with the Gentiles, so with the sects;\nhe taught, in the suppressed chapter of his history, that their\ndoctrines followed a normal course. And he believed so far in the\nprovidential mission of Protestantism, that it was idle to talk of\nreconciliation until it had borne all its fruit. He exasperated a Munich\ncolleague by refusing to pronounce whether Gregory and Innocent had the\nright to depose emperors, or Otho and Henry to depose popes; for he\nthought that historians should not fit theories to facts, but should be\ncontent with showing how things worked. Much secret and suppressed\nantagonism found vent in 1858, when one who had been his assistant in\nwriting the _Reformation_ and was still his friend, declared that he\nwould be a heretic whenever he found a backing.\n\nThose with whom he actively coalesced felt at times that he was\nincalculable, that he pursued a separate line, and was always learning,\nwhilst others busied themselves less with the unknown. This note of\ndistinctness and solitude set him apart from those about him, during his\nintimacy with the most catholic of Anglican prelates, Forbes, and with\nthe lamented Liddon. And it appeared still more when the denominational\nbarrier of his sympathy was no longer marked, and he, who had stood in\nthe rank almost with De Maistre and Perrone, found himself acting for\nthe same ends with their enemies, when he delivered a studied eulogy on\nMignet, exalted the authority of Laurent in religious history and of\nFerrari in civil, and urged the Bavarian academy to elect Taine, as a\nwriter who had but one rival in France, leaving it to uncertain\nconjecture whether the man he meant was Renan. In theory it was his\nmaxim that a man should guard against his friends. When he first\naddressed the university as Rector, saying that as the opportunity might\nnever come again, he would employ it to utter the thoughts closest to\nhis heart, he exhorted the students to be always true to their\nconvictions and not to yield to surroundings; and he invoked, rightly or\nwrongly, the example of Burke, his favourite among public men, who,\nturning from his associates to obey the light within, carried the nation\nwith him. A gap was apparent now between the spirit in which he devoted\nhimself to the service of his Church and that of the men whom he most\nesteemed. At that time he was nearly the only German who knew Newman\nwell and appreciated the grace and force of his mind. But Newman, even\nwhen he was angry, assiduously distinguished the pontiff from his court:\n\n   There will necessarily always be round the Pope second-rate people,\n   who are not subjects of that supernatural wisdom which is his\n   prerogative. For myself, certainly I have found myself in a different\n   atmosphere, when I have left the Curia for the Pope himself.\n\nMontalembert protested that there were things in _Kirche und Kirchen_\nwhich he would not have liked to say in public:\n\n   Il est certain que la seconde partie de votre livre deplaira\n   beaucoup, non seulement a Rome, mais encore a la tres grande majorite\n   des Catholiques. Je ne sais donc pas si, dans le cas ou vous\n   m'eussiez consulte prealablement, j'aurais eu le courage d'infliger\n   cette blessure a mon pere et a mes freres.\n\nDoellinger judged that the prerogative even of natural wisdom was often\nwanting in the government of the Church; and the sense of personal\nattachment, if he ever entertained it, had worn away in the friction and\nfamiliarity of centuries.\n\nAfter the disturbing interlude of the Roman question he did not resume\nthe history of Christianity. The second century with its fragments of\ninformation, its scope for piercing and conjecture, he left to\nLightfoot. With increasing years he lost the disposition to travel on\ncommon ground, impregnably occupied by specialists, where he had nothing\nof his own to tell; and he preferred to work where he could be a\npathfinder. Problems of Church government had come to the front, and he\nproposed to retraverse his subject, narrowing it into a history of the\npapacy. He began by securing his foundations and eliminating legend. He\nfound so much that was legendary that his critical preliminaries took\nthe shape of a history of fables relating to the papacy. Many of these\nwere harmless: others were devised for a purpose, and he fixed his\nattention more and more on those which were the work of design. The\nquestion, how far the persistent production of spurious matter had\npermanently affected the genuine constitution and theology of the Church\narose before his mind as he composed the _Papstfabeln des Mittelalters_.\nHe indicated the problem without discussing it. The matter of the volume\nwas generally neutral, but its threatening import was perceived, and\ntwenty-one hostile critics sent reviews of it to one theological\njournal.\n\nSince he first wrote on these matters, thirty years earlier, the advance\nof competitive learning had made it a necessity to revise statements by\nall accessible lights, and to subject authorities to a closer scrutiny.\nThe increase in the rigour of the obligation might be measured by\nTischendorf, who, after renewing the text of the New Testament in seven\neditions, had more than three thousand changes to make in the eighth.\nThe old pacific superficial method yielded no longer what would be\naccepted as certain knowledge. Having made himself master of the\nreconstructive process that was carried on a little apart from the main\nchain of durable literature, in academic transactions, in dissertations\nand periodicals, he submitted the materials he was about to use to the\nexigencies of the day. Without it, he would have remained a man of the\nlast generation, distanced by every disciple of the new learning. He\nwent to work with nothing but his trained and organised common sense,\nstarting from no theory, and aiming at no conclusion. If he was beyond\nhis contemporaries in the mass of expedient knowledge, he was not before\nthem in the strictness of his tests, or in sharpness or boldness in\napplying them. He was abreast as a critic, he was not ahead. He did not\ninnovate. The parallel studies of the time kept pace with his; and his\njudgments are those which are accepted generally. His critical mind was\npliant, to assent where he must, to reject where he must, and to doubt\nwhere he must. His submission to external testimony appeared in his\npanegyric of our Indian empire, where he overstated the increase of\npopulation. Informed of his error by one of his translators, he replied\nthat the figures had seemed incredible also to him, but having verified,\nhe found the statement so positively made that he did not venture to\ndepart from it. If inclination ever swayed his judgment, it was in his\ndespair of extracting a real available Buddha from the fables of\nSouthern India, which was conquered at last by the ablest of Mommsen's\npupils.\n\nHe was less apprehensive than most of his English friends in questions\nrelating to the Old Testament; and in the New, he was disposed, at\ntimes, to allow some force to Muratori's fragment as to the person of\nthe evangelist who is least favourable to St. Peter; and was puzzled at\nthe zeal of the Speaker's commentator as to the second epistle of the\napostle. He held to the epistles of St. Ignatius with the tenacity of a\nCaroline prelate, and was grateful to De Rossi for a chronological point\nin their favour. He rejected the attacks of Lucius on the most valued\npassages in Philo, and stood with Gass against Weingarten's argument on\nthe life of St. Anthony and the origin of Monasticism. He resisted\nOverbeck on the epistle to Diognetus, and thought Ebrard all astray as\nto the Culdees. There was no conservative antiquarian whom he prized\nhigher than Le Blant: yet he considered Ruinart credulous in dealing\nwith acts of early martyrs. A pupil on whose friendship he relied, made\nan effort to rescue the legends of the conversion of Germany; but the\nmaster preferred the unsparing demolitions of Rettberg. Capponi and Carl\nHegel were his particular friends; but he abandoned them without\nhesitation for Scheffer Boichorst, the iconoclast of early Italian\nchronicles, and never consented to read the learned reply of Da Lungo.\n\nThe _Pope Fables_ carried the critical inquiry a very little way; but he\nwent on with the subject. After the Donation of Constantine came the\nForged Decretals, which were just then printed for the first time in an\naccurate edition. Doellinger began to be absorbed in the long train of\nhierarchical fictions, which had deceived men like Gregory VII., St.\nThomas Aquinas, and Cardinal Bellarmine, which he traced up to the false\nAreopagite, and down to the Laminae Granatenses. These studies became the\nchief occupation of his life; they led to his excommunication in 1871,\nand carried him away from his early system. For this, neither syllabus\nnor ecumenical council was needed; neither crimes nor scandals were its\ndistant cause. The history of Church government was the influence which\nso profoundly altered his position. Some trace of his researches, at an\nearly period of their progress, appears in what he wrote on the occasion\nof the Vatican Council, especially in the fragment of an ecclesiastical\npathology which was published under the name of Janus. But the history\nitself, which was the main and characteristic work of his life, and was\npursued until the end, was never published or completed. He died without\nmaking it known to what extent, within what limit, the ideas with which\nhe had been so long identified were changed by his later studies, and\nhow wide a trench had opened between his earlier and his later life.\nTwenty years of his historical work are lost for history.\n\nThe revolution in method since he began to write was partly the better\nuse of old authorities, partly the accession of new. Doellinger had\ndevoted himself to the one in 1863; he passed to the other in 1864. For\ndefinite objects he had often consulted manuscripts, but the harvest was\nstacked away, and had scarcely influenced his works. In the use and\nknowledge of unpublished matter he still belonged to the old school, and\nwas on a level with Neander. Although, in later years, he printed six or\nseven volumes of Inedita, like Mai and Theiner he did not excel as an\neditor: and this part of his labours is notable chiefly for its effect\non himself. He never went over altogether to men like Schottmueller, who\nsaid of him that he made no research--_er hat nicht geforscht_--meaning\nthat he had made his mind up about the Templars by the easy study of\nWilkins, Michelet, Schottmueller himself, and perhaps a hundred others,\nbut had not gone underground to the mines they delved in. Fustel de\nCoulanges, at the time of his death, was promoting the election of the\nBishop of Oxford to the Institute, on the ground that he surpassed all\nother Englishmen in his acquaintance with manuscripts. Doellinger agreed\nwith their French rival in his estimate of our English historian, but he\nascribed less value to that part of his acquirements. He assured the\nBavarian Academy that Mr. Freeman, who reads print, but nevertheless\nmixes his colours with brains, is the author of the most profound work\non the Middle Ages ever written in this country, and is not only a\nbrilliant writer and a sagacious critic, but the most learned of all our\ncountrymen. Ranke once drew a line at 1514, after which, he said, we\nstill want help from unprinted sources. The world had moved a good deal\nsince that cautious innovation, and after 1860, enormous and excessive\nmasses of archive were brought into play. The Italian Revolution opened\ntempting horizons. In 1864 Doellinger spent his vacation in the libraries\nof Vienna and Venice. At Vienna, by an auspicious omen, Sickel, who was\nnot yet known to Greater Germany as the first of its mediaeval\npalaeographers, showed him the sheets of a work containing 247\nCarolingian acts unknown to Boehmer, who had just died with the repute of\nbeing the best authority on Imperial charters. During several years\nDoellinger followed up the discoveries he now began. Theiner sent him\ndocuments from the _Archivio Segreto_; one of his friends shut himself\nup at Trent, and another at Bergamo. Strangers ministered to his\nrequirements, and huge quantities of transcripts came to him from many\ncountries. Conventional history faded away; the studies of a lifetime\nsuddenly underwent transformation; and his view of the last six\ncenturies was made up from secret information gathered in thirty\nEuropean libraries and archives. As many things remote from current\nknowledge grew to be certainties, he became more confident, more\nindependent, and more isolated. The ecclesiastical history of his youth\nwent to pieces against the new criticism of 1863, and the revelation of\nthe unknown which began on a very large scale in 1864.\n\nDuring four years of transition occupied by this new stage of study, he\nabstained from writing books. Whenever some local occasion called upon\nhim to speak, he spoke of the independence and authority of history. In\ncases of collision with the Church, he said that a man should seek the\nerror in himself; but he spoke of the doctrine of the universal Church,\nand it did not appear that he thought of any living voice or present\ninstructor. He claimed no immunity for philosophy; but history, he\naffirmed, left to itself and pursued disinterestedly, will heal the ills\nit causes; and it was said of him that he set the university in the\nplace of the hierarchy. Some of his countrymen were deeply moved by the\nmeasures which were being taken to restore and to confirm the authority\nof Rome; and he had impatient colleagues at the university who pressed\nhim with sharp issues of uncompromising logic. He himself was reluctant\nto bring down serene research into troublesome disputation, and wished\nto keep history and controversy apart. His hand was forced at last by\nhis friends abroad. Whilst he pursued his isolating investigations he\nremained aloof from a question which in other countries and other days\nwas a summary and effective test of impassioned controversy. Persecution\nwas a problem that had never troubled him. It was not a topic with\ntheoretical Germans; the necessary books were hardly available, and a\nman might read all the popular histories and theologies without getting\nmuch further than the Spanish Inquisition. Ranke, averse from what is\nunpleasant, gave no details. The gravity of the question had never been\nbrought home to Doellinger in forty years of public teaching. When he\napproached it, as late as 1861, he touched lightly, representing the\nintolerance of Protestants to their disadvantage, while that of\nCatholics was a bequest of Imperial Rome, taken up in an emergency by\nsecular powers, in no way involving the true spirit and practice of the\nChurch. With this light footfall the topic which has so powerful a\nleverage slipped into the current of his thought. The view found favour\nwith Ambrose de Lisle, who, having read the _Letters to a Prebendary_,\nwas indignant with those who commit the Church to a principle often\nresisted or ignored. Newman would admit to no such compromise:\n\n   Is not the miraculous infliction of judgments upon blasphemy, lying,\n   profaneness, etc., in the apostles' day a sanction of infliction upon\n   the same by a human hand in the times of the Inquisition?\n   Ecclesiastical rulers may punish with the sword, if they can, and if\n   it is expedient or necessary to do so. The church has a right to make\n   laws and to enforce them with temporal punishments.\n\nThe question came forward in France in the wake of the temporal power.\nLiberal defenders of a government which made a principle of persecution\nhad to decide whether they approved or condemned it. Where was their\nliberality in one case, or their catholicity in the other? It was the\nsimple art of their adversaries to press this point, and to make the\nmost of it; and a French priest took upon him to declare that\nintolerance, far from being a hidden shame, was a pride and a glory:\n\"L'Eglise regarde l'Inquisition comme l'apogee de la civilisation\nchretienne, comme le fruit naturel des epoques de foi et de catholicisme\nnational.\" Gratry took the other side so strongly that there would have\nbeen a tumult at the Sorbonne, if he had said from his chair what he\nwrote in his book; and certain passages were struck out of the printed\ntext by the cautious archbishop's reviser. He was one of those French\ndivines who had taken in fuel at Munich, and he welcomed _Kirche und\nKirchen_: \"Quant au livre du docteur Doellinger sur la Papaute, c'est,\nselon moi, le livre decisif. C'est un chef-d'oeuvre admirable a\nplusieurs egards, et qui est destine a produire un bien incalculable et\na fixer l'opinion sur ce sujet; c'est ainsi que le juge aussi M. de\nMontalembert. Le docteur Doellinger nous a rendu a tous un grand\nservice.\" This was not the first impression of Montalembert. He deplored\nthe Odeon lectures as usurping functions divinely assigned not to\nprofessors, but to the episcopate, as a grief for friends and a joy for\nenemies. When the volume came he still objected to the policy, to the\nchapter on England, and to the cold treatment of Sixtus V. At last he\nadmired without reserve. Nothing better had been written since Bossuet;\nthe judgment on the Roman government, though severe, was just, and\ncontained no more than the truth. There was not a word which he would\nnot be able to sign. A change was going on in his position and his\naffections, as he came to regard toleration as the supreme affair. At\nMalines he solemnly declared that the Inquisitor was as horrible as the\nTerrorist, and made no distinction in favour of death inflicted for\nreligion against death for political motives: \"Les buchers allumes par\nune main catholique me font autant d'horreur que les echafauds ou les\nProtestants ont immole tant de martyrs.\" Wiseman, having heard him once,\nwas not present on the second day; but the Belgian cardinal assured him\nthat he had spoken like a sound divine. He described Dupanloup's defence\nof the Syllabus as a masterpiece of eloquent subterfuge, and repudiated\nhis _interpretations equivoques_. A journey to Spain in 1865 made him\nmore vehement than ever; although, from that time, the political\nopposition inflamed him less. He did not find imperialism intolerable.\nHis wrath was fixed on the things of which Spain had reminded him:\n\"C'est la qu'il faut aller pour voir ce que le catholicisme exclusif a\nsu faire d'une des plus grandes et des plus heroiques nations de la\nterre.--Je rapporte un surcroit d'horreur pour les doctrines fanatiques\net absolutistes qui ont cours aujourd'hui chez les catholiques du monde\nentier.\" In 1866 it became difficult, by the aid of others, to overcome\nFalloux's resistance to the admission of an article in the\n_Correspondant_, and by the end of the year his friends were unanimous\nto exclude him. An essay on Spain, his last work--\"dernier soupir de mon\name indignee et attristee\"--was, by Dupanloup's advice, not allowed to\nappear. Repelled by those whom he now designated as spurious, servile,\nand prevaricating liberals, he turned to the powerful German with whom\nhe thought himself in sympathy. He had applauded him for dealing with\none thing at a time, in his book on Rome: \"Vous avez bien fait de ne\nrien dire de l'absolutisme spirituel, quant a present. _Sat prata\nbiberunt_. Le reste viendra en son temps.\" He avowed that spiritual\nautocracy is worse than political; that evil passions which had\ntriumphed in the State were triumphant in the Church; that to send human\nbeings to the stake, with a crucifix before them, was the act of a\nmonster or a maniac. He was dying; but whilst he turned his face to the\nwall, lamenting that he had lived too long, he wished for one more\nconference with the old friend with whom, thirty-five years before, in a\nless anxious time, he had discussed the theme of religion and liberty.\nThis was in February 1867; and for several years he had endeavoured to\nteach Doellinger his clear-cut antagonism, and to kindle in him something\nof his gloomy and passionate fervour, on the one point on which all\ndepended.\n\nDoellinger arrived slowly at the contemplation of deeper issues than that\nof churchmen or laymen in political offices, of Roman or German pupils\nin theological chairs. After seeing Baron Arnim, in 1865, he lost the\nhope of saving the papal government, and ceased to care about the things\nhe had contended for in 1861; and a time came when he thought it\ndifficult to give up the temporal power, and yet revere the Holy See. He\nwrote to Montalembert that his illusions were failing: \"Ich bin sehr\nernuechtert.--Es ist so vieles in der Kirche anders gekommen, als ich es\nmir vor 20-30 Jahren gedacht, und rosenfarbig ausgemalt hatte.\" He\nlearnt to speak of spiritual despotism almost in the words of his\nfriend. The point of junction between the two orders of ideas is the use\nof fire for the enforcement of religion on which the French were laying\nall their stress: \"In Frankreich bewegt sich der Gegensatz blos auf dem\nsocialpolitischen Gebiete, nicht auf dem theologisch-wissenschaftlichen,\nweil es dort genau genommen eine theologische Wissenschaft nicht gibt\"\n(16th October 1865). The Syllabus had not permanently fixed his\nattention upon it. Two years later, the matter was put more definitely,\nand he found himself, with little real preparation, turning from\nantiquarian curiosities, and brought face to face with the radical\nquestion of life and death. If ever his literary career was influenced\nby his French alliances, by association with men in the throng, for whom\npolitics decided, and all the learning of the schools did not avail, the\nmoment was when he resolved to write on the Inquisition.\n\nThe popular account which he drew up appeared in the newspapers in the\nsummer of 1867; and although he did not mean to burn his ships, his\nposition as an official defender of the Holy See was practically at an\nend. He wrote rapidly, at short notice, and not in the steady course of\nprogressive acquisition. Ficker and Winkelmann have since given a\ndifferent narrative of the step by which the Inquisition came into\nexistence; and the praise of Gregory X., as a man sincerely religious\nwho kept aloof, was a mark of haste. In the work which he was using,\nthere was no act by that pontiff; but if he had had time to look deeper\nhe would not have found him, in this respect, different from his\ncontemporaries. There is no uncertainty as to the author's feeling\ntowards the infliction of torture and death for religion, and the\npurpose of his treatise is to prevent the nailing of the Catholic\ncolours to the stake. The spirit is that of the early lectures, in which\nhe said: \"Diese Schutzgewalt der Kirche ist rein geistlich. Sie kann\nalso auch einen solchen oeffentlichen hartnaeckigen und sonst unheilbaren\nGegner der Kirche nur seiner rein geistlichen kirchlichen Rechte\nberauben.\" Compared with the sweeping vehemence of the Frenchmen who\npreceded, the restrained moderation of language, the abstinence from the\nuse of general terms, leaves us in doubt how far the condemnation\nextended, and whether he did more, in fact, than deplore a deviation\nfrom the doctrine of the first centuries. \"Kurz darauf trat ein\nUmschwung ein, den man wohl einen Abfall von der alten Lehre nennen\ndarf, und der sich ausnimmt, als ob die Kaiser die Lehrmeister der\nBischoefe geworden seien.\" He never entirely separated himself in\nprinciple from the promoters, the agents, the apologists. He did not\nbelieve, with Hefele, that the spirit survives, that there are men, not\ncontent with eternal flames, who are ready to light up new Smithfields.\nMany of the defenders were his intimate friends. The most conspicuous\nwas the only colleague who addressed him with the familiar German _Du_.\nSpeaking of two or three men, of whom one, Martens, had specially\nattacked the false liberalism which sees no good in the Inquisition, he\nwrote: \"Sie werden sich noch erinnern ... wie hoch ich solche Maenner\nstelle.\" He differed from them widely, but he differed academically; and\nthis was not the polish or precaution of a man who knows that to assail\ncharacter is to degrade and to betray one's cause. The change in his own\nopinions was always before him. Although convinced that he had been\nwrong in many of the ideas and facts with which he started, he was also\nsatisfied that he had been as sincere and true to his lights in 1835 as\nin 1865. There was no secret about the Inquisition, and its observances\nwere published and republished in fifty books; but in his early days he\nhad not read them, and there was not a German, from Basel to\nKoenigsberg, who could have faced a _viva voce_ in the _Directorium_ or\nthe _Arsenale_, or who had ever read Percin or Paramo. If Lacordaire\ndisconnected St. Dominic from the practice of persecution, Doellinger had\ndone the same thing before him.\n\n   Weit entfernt, wie man ihm wohl vorgeworfen hat, sich dabei Gewalt\n   und Verfolgung zu erlauben, oder gar der Stifter der Inquisition zu\n   werden, wirkte er, nicht den Irrenden, sondern den Irrthum befehdend,\n   nur durch ruhige Belehrung und Eroerterung.\n\nIf Newman, a much more cautious disputant, thought it substantial truth\nto say that Rome never burnt heretics, there were things as false in his\nown early writings. If Moehler, in the religious wars, diverted attention\nfrom Catholic to Protestant atrocities, he took the example from his\nfriend's book, which he was reviewing. There may be startling matter in\nLocatus and Pegna, but they were officials writing under the strictest\ncensorship, and nobody can tell when they express their own private\nthoughts. There is a copy of Suarez on which a priest has written the\nmarginal ejaculation: \"Mon Dieu, ayez pitie de nous!\" But Suarez had to\nsend the manuscript of his most aggressive book to Rome for revision,\nand Doellinger used to insist, on the testimony of his secretary, in\nWalton's _Lives_, that he disavowed and detested the interpolations that\ncame back.\n\nThe French group, unlike him in spirit and motive, but dealing with the\nsame opponents, judged them freely, and gave imperative utterance to\ntheir judgments. While Doellinger said of Veuillot that he meant well,\nbut did much good and much evil, Montalembert called him a hypocrite:\n\"L'Univers, en declarant tous les jours qu'il ne veut pas d'autre\nliberte que la sienne, justifie tout ce que nos pires ennemis ont jamais\ndit sur la mauvaise foi et l'hypocrisie des polemistes chretiens.\"\nLacordaire wrote to a hostile bishop: \"L'Univers est a mes yeux la\nnegation de tout esprit chretien et de tout bon sens humain. Ma\nconsolation au milieu de si grandes miseres morales est de vivre\nsolitaire, occupe d'une oeuvre que Dieu benit, et de protester par mon\nsilence, et de temps en temps par mes paroles, contre la plus grande\ninsolence qui se soit encore autorisee au nom de Jesus-Christ.\" Gratry\nwas a man of more gentle nature, but his tone is the same: \"Esprits faux\nou nuls, consciences intellectuelles faussees par l'habitude de\nl'apologie sans franchise: _partemque ejus cum hypocritis ponet_.--Cette\necole est bien en verite une ecole de mensonge.--C'est cette ecole qui\nest depuis des siecles, et surtout en ce siecle, l'opprobre de notre\ncause et le fleau de la religion. Voila notre ennemi commun; voila\nl'ennemi de l'Eglise.\"\n\nDoellinger never understood party divisions in this tragic way. He was\nprovided with religious explanations for the living and the dead; and\nhis maxims in regard to contemporaries governed and attenuated his view\nof every historical problem. For the writers of his acquaintance who\nwere unfaltering advocates of the Holy Office, for Philips and Gams, and\nfor Theiner, who expiated devious passages of early youth, amongst other\npenitential works, with large volumes in honour of Gregory XIII., he had\nalways the same mode of defence: \"Mir begegnet es noch jede Woche, dass\nich irgend einem Irrthum, mitunter einem lange gepflegten, entsage, ihn\nmir gleichsam aus der Brust herausreissen muss. Da sollte man freilich\nhoechst duldsam und nachsichtig gegen fremde Irrthuemer werden\" (5th\nOctober 1866). He writes in the same terms to another correspondent\nsixteen years later: \"Mein ganzes Leben ist ein successives Abstreifen\nvon Irrthuemern gewesen, von Irrthuemern, die ich mit Zaehigkeit festhielt,\ngewaltsam gegen die mir aufdaemmernde bessere Erkenntniss mich stemmend;\nund doch meine ich sagen zu duerfen, dass ich dabei nicht _dishonest_\nwar. Darf ich andre verurtheilen _in eodem luto mecum haerentes_?\" He\nregretted as he grew old the hardness and severity of early days, and\napplied the same inconclusive deduction from his own experience to the\npast. After comparing Baronius and Bellarmine with Bossuet and Arnauld\nhe goes on: \"Wenn ich solche Maenner auf einem Irrthum treffe, so sage\nich mir: 'Wenn Du damals gelebt, und an seiner Stelle gestanden waerest,\nhaettest Du nicht den allegingn Wahn getheilt; und er, wenn er die Dir zu\nTheil gewordenen Erkenntnissmittel besessen, wuerde er nicht besseren\nGebrauch davon gemacht haben, die Wahrheit nicht frueher erkannt und\nbekannt haben, als Du?'\"\n\nHe sometimes distrusted his favourite argument of ignorance and early\nprepossessions, and felt that there was presumption and unreality in\ntendering such explanations to men like the Bollandist De Buck, De\nRossi, whom the Institute elected in preference to Mommsen, or\nWindischmann, whom he himself had been accused of bringing forward as a\nrival to Moehler. He would say that knowledge may be a burden and not a\nlight, that the faculty of doing justice to the past is among the rarest\nof moral and intellectual gifts: \"Man kann viel wissen, viele Notizen im\nKopf haben, ohne das rechte wissenschaftliche Verstaendniss, ohne den\nhistorischen Sinn. Dieser ist, wie Sie wohl wissen, gar nicht so haeufig;\nund we er fehlt, da fehlt auch, scheint mir, die volle Verantwortlichkeit\nfuer das gewusste.\"\n\nIn 1879 he prepared materials for a paper on the Massacre of St.\nBartholomew. Here he was breaking new ground, and verging on that which\nit was the policy and the aspiration of his life to avoid. Many a man\nwho gives no tears to Cranmer, Servetus, or Bruno, who thinks it just\nthat the laws should be obeyed, who deems that actions done by order are\nexcused, and that legality implies morality, will draw the line at\nmidnight murder and wholesale extermination. The deed wrought at Paris\nand in forty towns of France in 1572, the arguments which produced it,\nthe arguments which justified it, left no room for the mists of\nmitigation and compromise. The passage from the age of Gregory IX. to\nthat of Gregory XIII., from the Crusades to the wars of Religion,\nbrought his whole system into jeopardy. The historian who was at the\nheels of the divine in 1861, and level with him in 1867, would have come\nto the front. The discourse was never delivered, never composed. But the\nsubject of toleration was absent no more from his thoughts, filling\nspace once occupied by Julian of Eclanum and Duns Scotus, the Variata\nand the Five Propositions. To the last days of 1889 he was engaged in\nfollowing the doctrines of intolerance back to their root, from Innocent\nIII. to the Council of Rheims, from Nicholas I. to St. Augustine,\nnarrowing the sphere of individual responsibility, defending agents, and\nmultiplying degrees so as to make them imperceptible. Before the\nwritings of Priscillian were published by the Vienna Academy the nature\nof their strange contents was disclosed. It then appeared that a copy of\nthe _Codex unicus_ had been sent to Doellinger from Wuerzburg years\nbefore; and that he had never adverted to the fact that the burning of\nheretics came, fully armed, from the brain of one man, and was the\ninvention of a heretic who became its first victim.\n\nAt Rome he discussed the council of Trent with Theiner, and tried to\nobtain permission for him to publish the original acts. Pius IX.\nobjected that none of his predecessors had allowed it, and Theiner\nanswered that none of them had defined the Immaculate Conception. In a\npaper which Doellinger drew up, he observed that Pallavicini cannot\nconvince; that far from proving the case against the artful Servite, the\npettiness of his charges indicates that he has no graver fault to find;\nso that nothing but the production of the official texts can enforce or\ndisprove the imputation that Trent was a scene of tyranny and intrigue.\nHis private belief then was that the papers would disprove the\nimputation and vindicate the council. When Theiner found it possible to\npublish his _Acta Authentica_, Doellinger also printed several private\ndiaries, chiefly from Mendham's collection at the Bodleian. But the\ncorrespondence between Rome and the legates is still, in its integrity,\nkept back. The two friends had examined it; both were persuaded that it\nwas decisive; but they judged that it decided in opposite ways. Theiner,\nthe official guardian of the records, had been forbidden to communicate\nthem during the Vatican Council; and he deemed the concealment prudent.\nWhat passed in Rome under Pius IX. would, he averred, suffer by\ncomparison. According to Doellinger, the suppressed papers told against\nTrent.\n\n   Wenn wir nicht allen unseren henotischen Hoffnungen entsagen und uns\n   nicht in schweren Konflikt mit der alten (vormittel-alterigen) Kirche\n   bringen wollen, werden wir doch auch da das Korrektiv des\n   Vincentianischen Prinzips (_semper, ubique, ab omnibus_) zur\n   Anwendung bringen muessen.\n\nAfter his last visit to the Marciana he thought more favourably of\nFather Paul, sharing the admiration which Venetians feel for the\ngreatest writer of the Republic, and falling little short of the\njudgments which Macaulay inscribed, after each perusal, in the copy at\nInveraray. Apart from his chief work he thought him a great historian,\nand he rejected the suspicion that he professed a religion which he did\nnot believe. He even fancied that the manuscript, which in fact was\nforwarded with much secrecy to Archbishop Abbot, was published against\nhis will. The intermediate seekers, who seem to skirt the border, such\nas Grotius, Ussher, Praetorius, and the other celebrated Venetian, De\nDominis, interested him deeply, in connection with the subject of\nIrenics, and the religious problem was part motive of his incessant\nstudy of Shakespeare, both in early life, and when he meditated joining\nin the debate between Simpson, Rio, Bernays, and the _Edinburgh Review_.\n\nHis estimate of his own work was low. He wished to be remembered as a\nman who had written certain books, but who had not written many more.\nHis collections constantly prompted new and attractive schemes, but his\nway was strewn with promise unperformed, and abandoned from want of\nconcentration. He would not write with imperfect materials, and to him\nthe materials were always imperfect. Perpetually engaged in going over\nhis own life and reconsidering his conclusions, he was not depressed by\nunfinished work. When a sanguine friend hoped that all the contents of\nhis hundred note-books would come into use, he answered that perhaps\nthey might, if he lived for a hundred and fifty years. He seldom wrote a\nbook without compulsion, or the aid of energetic assistants. The\naccount of mediaeval sects, dated 1890, was on the stocks for half a\ncentury. The discourse on the Templars, delivered at his last appearance\nin public, had been always before him since a conversation with Michelet\nabout the year 1841. Fifty-six years lay between his text to the\n_Paradiso_ of Cornelius and his last return to Dante.\n\nWhen he began to fix his mind on the constitutional history of the\nChurch, he proposed to write, first, on the times of Innocent XI. It was\nthe age he knew best, in which there was most interest, most material,\nmost ability, when divines were national classics, and presented many\ndistinct types of religious thought, when biblical and historical\nscience was founded, and Catholicism was presented in its most winning\nguise. The character of Odescalchi impressed him, by his earnestness in\nsustaining a strict morality. Fragments of this projected work\nreappeared in his lectures on Louis XIV., and in his last publication on\nthe Casuists. The lectures betray the decline of the tranquil idealism\nwhich had been the admiration and despair of friends. Opposition to Rome\nhad made him, like his ultramontane allies in France, more indulgent to\nthe ancient Gallican enemy. He now had to expose the vice of that\nsystem, which never roused the king's conscience, and served for sixty\nyears, from the remonstrance of Caussin to the anonymous warning of\nFenelon, as the convenient sanction of absolutism. In the work on\nseventeenth-century ethics, which is his farthest, the moral point of\nview prevails over every other, and conscience usurps the place of\ntheology, canon law, and scholarship. This was his tribute to a new\nphase of literature, the last he was to see, which was beginning to put\nethical knowledge above metaphysics and politics, as the central range\nof human progress. Morality, veracity, the proper atmosphere of ideal\nhistory, became the paramount interest.\n\nWhen he was proposed for a degree, the most eloquent lips at Oxford,\nsilenced for ever whilst I write this page, pointed to his excellence in\nthose things which are the merit of Germans. \"Quaecunque in Germanorum\nindole admiranda atque imitanda fere censemus, ea in Doellingero maxime\nsplendent.\" The patriotic quality was recognised in the address of the\nBerlin professors, who say that by upholding the independence of the\nnational thought, whilst he enriched it with the best treasure of other\nlands, he realised the ideal of the historian. He became more German in\nextreme old age, and less impressive in his idiomatic French and English\nthan in his own language. The lamentations of men he thought good\njudges, Mazade and Taine, and the first of literary critics, Montegut,\ndiluted somewhat his admiration for the country of St. Bernard and\nBossuet. In spite of politics, his feeling for English character, for\nthe moral quality of English literature, never changed; and he told his\nown people that their faults are not only very near indeed to their\nvirtues, but are sometimes more apparent to the observer. The belief in\nthe fixity and influence of national type, confirmed by his authorities,\nGanganelli and Moehler, continued to determine his judgments. In his last\nletter to Mr. Gladstone, he illustrated the Irish question by means of a\nchronicle describing Ireland a thousand years ago.\n\nEverybody has felt that his power was out of proportion to his work, and\nthat he knew too much to write. It was so much better to hear him than\nto read all his books, that the memory of what he was will pass away\nwith the children whom he loved. Hefele called him the first theologian\nin Germany, and Hoefler said that he surpassed all men in the knowledge\nof historical literature; but Hefele was the bishop of his predilection,\nand Hoefler had been fifty years his friend, and is the last survivor of\nthe group which once made Munich the capital of citramontane\nCatholicity. Martensen, the most brilliant of Episcopalian divines,\ndescribes him as he talked with equal knowledge and certainty of every\nage, and understood all characters and all situations as if he had lived\nin the midst of them. The best ecclesiastical historian now living is\nthe fittest judge of the great ecclesiastical historian who is dead.\nHarnack has assigned causes which limited his greatness as a writer,\nperhaps even as a thinker; but he has declared that no man had the same\nknowledge and intelligence of history in general, and of religious\nhistory which is its most essential element, and he affirms, what some\nhave doubted, that he possessed the rare faculty of entering into alien\nthought. None of those who knew Professor Doellinger best, who knew him\nin the third quarter of the century, to which he belonged by the full\nfruition of his powers and the completeness of his knowledge, will ever\nqualify these judgments. It is right to add that, in spite of boundless\nreading, there was no lumber in his mind, and in spite of his classical\nlearning, little ornament. Among the men to be commemorated here, he\nstands alone. Throughout the measureless distance which he traversed,\nhis movement was against his wishes, in pursuit of no purpose, in\nobedience to no theory, under no attraction but historical research\nalone. It was given to him to form his philosophy of history on the\nlargest induction ever available to man; and whilst he owed more to\ndivinity than any other historian, he owed more to history than any\nother divine.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 338: _English Historical Review_,1890.]\n\n\n\n\nXII\n\nCARDINAL WISEMAN AND THE HOME AND FOREIGN REVIEW[339]\n\n\nIt is one of the conditions inseparable from a public career to be often\nmisunderstood, and sometimes judged unfairly even when understood the\nbest. No one who has watched the formation of public opinion will be\ndisposed to attribute all the unjust judgments which assail him to the\nmalice of individuals, or to imagine that he can prevent misconceptions\nor vindicate his good name by words alone. He knows that even where he\nhas committed no errors he must pay tribute to the fallibility of\nmankind, and that where he is in fault he must also pay tribute to his\nown. This is a natural law; and the purer a man's conscience is, and the\nmore single his aim, the less eager will he be to evade it, or to defend\nhimself from its penalties.\n\nThe man whose career is bound up with that of some school or party will\nestimate the value of his opponents' censures by the worth which he\nattributes to the undiscriminating praise of his friends; but he who has\ndevoted himself to the development of principles which will not always\nbend to the dictates of expediency will have no such short way of\ndealing with objections. His independence will frequently and inexorably\ndemand the sacrifice of interests to truth--of what is politic to what\nis right; and, whenever he makes that sacrifice, he will appear a\ntraitor to those whom he is most anxious to serve, while his act will be\nhailed by those who are farthest from sharing his opinions as a proof of\nsecret sympathy, and harbinger of future alliance. Thus, the censure\nwhich he incurs will most often come from those whose views are\nessentially his own; and the very matter which calls it forth will be\nthat which elicits the applause of adversaries who cannot bring\nthemselves to believe either in the truth of his opinions, in the\nintegrity of his motives, or in the sincerity of his aims.\n\nThere are few men living whose career has been more persistently\nmisinterpreted, more bitterly assailed, or more ignorantly judged, than\nthe illustrious person who is the head in England of the Church to which\nwe belong, Cardinal Wiseman has been for many years the chief object of\nthe attacks of those who have desired to injure or degrade our\ncommunity. He is not only the canonical chief of English Catholics, but\nhis ability, and the devotion of his life to their cause, have made him\ntheir best representative and their most powerful champion. No prelate\nin Christendom is more fully trusted by the Holy See, or exercises a\nmore extensive personal influence, or enjoys so wide a literary renown.\nUpon him, therefore, intolerance and fanaticism have concentrated their\nmalice. He has had to bear the brunt of that hatred which the holiness\nof Catholicism inspires in its enemies; and the man who has never been\nfound wanting when the cause of the Church was at stake may boast, with\na not unworthy pride, of the indifference with which he has encountered\nthe personal slander of a hostile press.\n\nThe Catholics of this country are attached to Cardinal Wiseman by warmer\nfeelings and more personal ties than those of merely ecclesiastical\nsubordination. It has been his privilege to gather the spiritual fruits\nof the Catholic Emancipation Act; and the history of English Catholicism\nhas been, for a whole generation, bound up with his name. That immense\nchange in the internal condition of the Church in England which\ndistinguishes our days from the time of Milner has grown up under his\ninfluence, and has been in great part his work. We owe it to him that we\nhave been brought into closer intercourse with Rome, and into contact\nwith the rest of Europe. By his preaching and his spiritual direction he\nhas transformed the devotions of our people; while his lectures and\nwritings have made Protestants familiar with Catholic ideas, and have\ngiven Catholics a deeper insight into their own religion. As a\ncontroversialist he influenced the Oxford movement more deeply than any\nother Catholic. As director of the chief literary organ of Catholics\nduring a quarter of a century he rendered services to our literature,\nand overcame difficulties, which none are in a better position to\nappreciate than those who are engaged in a similar work. And as\nPresident of Oscott, he acquired the enduring gratitude of hundreds who\nowed to his guidance the best portion of their training.\n\nThese personal relations with English Catholics, which have made him a\nstranger to none and a benefactor to all, have at the same time given\nhim an authority of peculiar weight amongst them. With less unity of\nview and tradition than their brethren in other lands, they were\naccustomed, in common with the rest of Englishmen, to judge more\nindependently and to speak more freely than is often possible in\ncountries more exclusively Catholic. Their minds are not all cast in the\nsame mould, nor their ideas derived from the same stock; but all alike,\nfrom bishop to layman, identify their cause with that of the Cardinal,\nand feel that, in the midst of a hostile people, no diversity of opinion\nought to interfere with unity of action, no variety of interest with\nidentity of feeling, no controversy with the universal reverence which\nis due to the position and character of the Archbishop of Westminster.\n\nIn this spirit the Catholic body have received Cardinal Wiseman's latest\npublication--his \"Reply to the Address of his Clergy on his return from\nRome.\" He speaks in it of the great assemblage of the Episcopate, and of\ntheir address to the Holy Father. Among the bishops there present he\nwas the most conspicuous, and he was President of the Commission to\nwhich the preparation of their address was intrusted. No account of it,\ntherefore, can be more authentic than that which he is able to give. The\nreserve imposed by his office, and by the distinguished part he had to\nbear, has been to some extent neutralised by the necessity of refuting\nfalse and exaggerated rumours which were circulated soon after the\nmeeting, and particularly two articles which appeared in _The Patrie_ on\nthe 4th and 5th of July, and in which it was stated that the address\nwritten by Cardinal Wiseman contained \"most violent attacks on all the\nfundamental principles of modern society.\"\n\nAfter replying in detail to the untruths of this newspaper, the Cardinal\nproceeds as follows:--\n\n   With far greater pain I feel compelled to advert to a covert\n   insinuation of the same charges, in a publication avowedly Catholic,\n   and edited in my own diocese, consequently canonically subject to my\n   correction. Should such a misstatement, made under my own eyes, be\n   passed over by me, it might be surmised that it could not be\n   contradicted; and whether chronologically it preceded or followed the\n   French account it evidently becomes my duty to notice it, as French\n   bishops have considered it theirs to correct the inaccuracies of\n   their native writers.\n\n   Otherwise, in a few years, we might find reference made, as to a\n   recognised Catholic authority, for the current and unreproved\n   statement of what occurred at Rome, to _The Home and Foreign Review_.\n   And that in a matter on which reprehension would have been doubly\n   expected, if merited. In its first number the Address, which has, I\n   believe, wonderfully escaped the censure of Protestant and infidel\n   journals, is thus spoken of: \"This Address is said to be a compromise\n   between one which took the violent course of recommending that major\n   excommunication should be at once pronounced against the chief\n   enemies of the temporal power by name, and one still more moderate\n   than the present\" (_The Home and Foreign Review_, p. 264). Now this\n   very charge about recommending excommunication is the one made by the\n   French paper against my Address. But, leaving to the writer the\n   chance of an error, in this application of his words, I am bound to\n   correct it, to whomever it refers. He speaks of only two addresses:\n   the distinction between them implies severe censure on one. I assure\n   you that neither contained the recommendation or the sentiment\n   alluded to.\n\n   My Brethren, I repeat that it pains me to have to contradict the\n   repetition, in my own diocese, of foreign accusations, without the\n   smallest pains taken to verify or disprove them with means at hand.\n   But this can hardly excite surprise in us who know the antecedents of\n   that journal under another name, the absence for years of all reserve\n   or reverence in its treatment of persons or of things deemed sacred,\n   its grazing over the very edges of the most perilous abysses of\n   error, and its habitual preferences of uncatholic to catholic\n   instincts, tendencies, and motives. In uttering these sad thoughts,\n   and entreating you to warn your people, and especially the young,\n   against such dangerous leadership, believe me I am only obeying a\n   higher direction than my own impulses, and acting under much more\n   solemn sanctions. Nor shall I stand alone in this unhappily necessary\n   correction.\n\n   But let us pass to more cheerful and consoling thoughts. If my\n   connection with the preparation of the Address, from my having held,\n   though unworthy, office in its Committee, enables and authorises me\n   to rebut false charges against it, it has further bestowed upon me\n   the privilege of personal contact with a body of men who justly\n   represented the entire Episcopate, and would have represented it with\n   equal advantage in any other period of the Church. I know not who\n   selected them, nor do I venture to say that many other equal\n   committees of eighteen could not have been extracted from the\n   remainder. I think they might; but I must say that a singular wisdom\n   seemed to me to have presided over the actual, whatever might have\n   been any other possible, choice.\n\n   Deliberations more minute, more mutually respectful, more courteous,\n   or at the same time more straightforward and unflinching, could\n   hardly have been carried on. More learning in theology and canon law,\n   more deep religious feeling, a graver sense of the responsibility\n   laid upon the Commission, or a more scrupulous regard to the claims\n   of justice, and no less of mercy, could scarcely have been exhibited.\n   Its spirit was one of mildness, of gentleness, and of reverence to\n   all who rightly claimed it. \"Violent courses,\" invitations to \"draw\n   the sword and rush on enemies,\" or to deal about \"the major\n   excommunication by name,\" I deliberately assure you, were never\n   mentioned, never insinuated, and I think I may say, never thought of\n   by any one in that Council. In the sketches proposed by several,\n   there was not a harsh or disrespectful word about any sovereign or\n   government; in anything I ever humbly proposed, there was not a\n   single allusion to \"King or Kaiser.\"\n\nOur duty to the Cardinal and our duty to our readers alike forbid us to\npass by these remarks without notice. Silence would imply either that we\nadmitted the charge, or that we disregarded the censure; and each of\nthese suppositions would probably be welcome to the enemies of our\ncommon cause, while both of them are, in fact, untrue. The impossibility\nof silence, however, involves the necessity of our stating the facts on\nwhich charges so definite and so formidable have been founded. In doing\nso, we shall endeavour both to exhibit the true sequence of events, and\nto explain the origin of the Cardinal's misapprehension; and in this way\nwe shall reply to the charges made against us.\n\nBut we must first explicitly declare, as we have already implied, that\nin the Cardinal's support and approbation of our work we should\nrecognise an aid more valuable to the cause we are engaged in than the\nutmost support which could be afforded to us by any other person; and\nthat we cannot consider the terms he has used respecting us otherwise\nthan as a misfortune to be profoundly regretted, and a blow which might\nseriously impair our power to do service to religion.\n\nA Catholic Review which is deprived of the countenance of the\necclesiastical authorities is placed in an abnormal position. A germ of\ndistrust is planted in the ground where the good seed should grow; the\nsupport which the suspected organ endeavours to lend to the Church is\nrepudiated by the ecclesiastical rulers; and its influence in Protestant\nsociety, as an expositor of Catholic ideas, is in danger of being\ndestroyed, because its exposition of them may be declared unsound and\nunfair, even when it represents them most faithfully and defends them\nmost successfully. The most devoted efforts of its conductors are liable\nto be misconstrued, and perversely turned either against the Church or\nagainst the _Review_ itself; its best works are infected with the\nsuspicion with which it is regarded, and its merits become almost more\nperilous than its faults.\n\nThese considerations could not have been overlooked by the Cardinal when\nhe resolved to take a step which threatened to paralyse one of the few\norgans of Catholic opinion in England. Yet he took that step. If an\nenemy had done this, it would have been enough to vindicate ourselves,\nand to leave the burden of an unjust accusation to be borne by its\nauthor. But since it has been done by an ecclesiastical superior, with\nentire foresight of the grave consequences of the act, it has become\nnecessary for us, in addition, to explain the circumstances by which he\nwas led into a course we have so much reason to deplore, and to show how\nan erroneous and unjust opinion could arise in the mind of one whom\nobvious motives would have disposed to make the best use of a\npublication, the conductors of which are labouring to serve the\ncommunity he governs, and desired and endeavoured to obtain his sanction\nfor their work. If we were unable to reconcile these two\nnecessities,--if we were compelled to choose between a forbearance\ndishonourable to ourselves, and a refutation injurious to the Cardinal,\nwe should be placed in a painful and almost inextricable difficulty. For\na Catholic who defends himself at the expense of an ecclesiastical\nsuperior sacrifices that which is generally of more public value than\nhis own fair fame; and an English Catholic who casts back on Cardinal\nWiseman the blame unjustly thrown on himself, hurts a reputation which\nbelongs to the whole body, and disgraces the entire community of\nCatholics. By such a course, a Review which exists only for public\nobjects would stultify its own position and injure its own cause, and\n_The Home and Foreign Review_ has no object to attain, and no views to\nadvance, except objects and views in which the Catholic Church is\ninterested. The ends for which it labours, according to its light and\nability, are ends by which the Church cannot but gain; the doctrine it\nreceives, and the authority it obeys, are none other than those which\ncommand the acceptance and submission of the Cardinal himself. It\ndesires to enjoy his support; it has no end to gain by opposing him. But\nwe are not in this painful dilemma. We can show that the accusations of\nthe Cardinal are unjust; and, at the same time, we can explain how\nnaturally the suppositions on which they are founded have arisen, by\ngiving a distinct and ample statement of our own principles and\nposition.\n\nThe complaint which the Cardinal makes against us contains,\nsubstantially, five charges: (1) that we made a misstatement, affirming\nsomething historically false to be historically true; (2) that the\nfalsehood consists in the statement that only two addresses were\nproposed in the Commission--one violent, the other very moderate,--and\nthat the address finally adopted was a compromise between these two; (3)\nthat we insinuated that the Cardinal himself was the author of the\nviolent address; (4) that we cast, by implication, a severe censure on\nthat address and its author; and (5) that our narrative was derived from\nthe same sources, and inspired by the same motives, as that given in\n_The Patrie_,--for the Cardinal distinctly connects the two accounts,\nand quotes passages indifferently from both, in such a way that words\nwhich we never used might by a superficial reader be supposed to be\nours.\n\nTo these charges our reply is as follows: (1) We gave the statement of\nwhich the Cardinal complains as a mere rumour current on any good\nauthority at the time of our publication, and we employed every means in\nour power to test its accuracy, though the only other narratives which\nhad then reached England were, as the Cardinal says (p. 9), too \"partial\nand perverted\" to enable us to sift it to the bottom. We stated that a\nrumour was current, not that its purport was true. (2) We did not speak\nof \"only two addresses\" actually submitted to the Commission. We\nsupposed the report to mean, that of the three possible forms of\naddress, two extreme and one mean, each of which actually had partisans\nin the Commission, the middle or moderate form was the one finally\nadopted. (3) We had no suspicion that the Cardinal had proposed any\nviolent address at all; we did not know that such a proposal had been,\nor was about to be, attributed to him; and there was no connection\nwhatever between him and it either in our mind or in our language. (4)\nWe implied no censure either on the course proposed or on its proposer,\nstill less on the Cardinal personally. (5) The articles in _The Patrie_\nfirst appeared--and that in France--some days after our Review was in\nthe hands of the public; we know nothing of the authority on which their\nstatements were founded, and we have not the least sympathy either with\nthe politics or the motives of that newspaper.\n\nThis reply would be enough for our own defence; but it is right that we\nshould show, on the other side, how it came to pass that the Cardinal\nwas led to subject our words to that construction which we have so much\nreason to regret. Reading them by the light of his own knowledge, and\nthrough the medium of the false reports which afterwards arose with\nregard to himself, his interpretation of them may easily have appeared\nboth plausible and likely. For there were more draft addresses than one:\none was his; the actual address was a compromise between them, and he\nhad been falsely accused of, and severely censured for, proposing\nviolent courses in his address. Knowing this, he was tempted to suspect\na covert allusion to himself under our words, and the chronological\nrelation between our own article and those of _The Patrie_ was easily\nforgotten, or made nugatory by the supposition of their both being\nderived from the same sources of information.\n\nBut this will be made clearer by the following narrative of facts: A\nCommission was appointed to draw up the address of the bishops; Cardinal\nWiseman, its president, proposed a draft address, which was not\nobnoxious to any of the criticisms made on any other draft, and is, in\nsubstance, the basis of the address as it was ultimately settled. It was\nfavourably received by the Commission; but, after some deliberation, its\nfinal adoption was postponed.\n\nSubsequently, a prelate who had been absent from the previous discussion\npresented another draft, not in competition with that proposed by the\npresident, nor as an amendment to it, but simply as a basis for\ndiscussion. This second draft was also favourably received; and the\nCommission, rather out of consideration for the great services and\nreputation of its author than from any dissatisfaction with the address\nproposed by the president, resolved to amalgamate the two drafts. All\nother projects were set aside; and, in particular, two proposals were\ndeliberately rejected. One of these proposals was, to pay a tribute of\nacknowledgment for the services of the French nation to the Holy See;\nthe other was, to denounce the perfidious and oppressive policy of the\nCourt of Turin in terms which we certainly should not think either\nexaggerated or undeserved. We have neither right nor inclination to\ncomplain of the ardent patriotism which has been exhibited by the\nillustrious Bishop of Orleans in the two publications he has put forth\nsince his return to his See, or of the indignation which the system\nprevailing at Turin must excite in every man who in his heart loves the\nChurch, or whose intelligence can appreciate the first principles of\ngovernment. Whatever may have been the censure proposed, it certainly\ndid not surpass the measure of the offence. Nevertheless, the impolicy\nof a violent course, which could not fail to cause irritation, and to\naggravate the difficulties of the Church, appears to have been fully\nrecognised by the Commission; and we believe that no one was more prompt\nin exposing the inutility of such a measure than the Cardinal himself.\nThe idea that anything imprudent or aggressive was to be found in his\ndraft is contradicted by all the facts of the case, and has not a shadow\nof foundation in anything that is contained in the address as adopted.\n\nWe need say no more to explain what has been very erroneously called our\ncovert insinuation. From this narrative of facts our statement comes\nout, no longer as a mere report, but as a substantially accurate summary\nof events, questioned only on one point,--the extent of the censure\nwhich was proposed. So that in the account which the Cardinal quoted\nfrom our pages there was no substantial statement to correct, as in fact\nno correction of any definite point but one has been attempted.\n\nHow this innocent statement has come to be suspected of a hostile\nintent, and to be classed with the calumnies of _The Patrie_, is another\nquestion. The disposition with which the Cardinal sat in judgment upon\nour words was founded, not on anything they contained, but, as he\ndeclares, on the antecedents of the conductors of _The Home and Foreign\nReview_, and on the character of a journal which no longer exists. That\ncharacter he declares to consist in \"the absence for years of all\nreserve or reverence in its treatment of persons or of things deemed\nsacred, its grazing over the very edges of the most perilous abysses of\nerror, and its habitual preferences of uncatholic to catholic instincts,\ntendencies, and motives.\" In publishing this charge, which amounts to a\ndeclaration that we hold opinions and display a spirit not compatible\nwith an entire attachment and submission of intellect and will to the\ndoctrine and authority of the Catholic Church, the Cardinal adds, \"I am\nonly obeying a higher direction than my own impulses, and acting under\nmuch more solemn sanctions. Nor shall I stand alone in this unhappily\nnecessary correction.\"\n\nThere can be little doubt of the nature of the circumstances to which\nthis announcement points. It is said that certain papers or\npropositions, which the report does not specify, have been extracted\nfrom the journal which the Cardinal identifies with this Review, and\nforwarded to Rome for examination; that the Prefect of Propaganda has\ncharacterised these extracts, or some of them, in terms which correspond\nto the Cardinal's language; and that the English bishops have\ndeliberated whether they should issue similar declarations. We have no\nreason to doubt that the majority of them share the Cardinal's view,\nwhich is also that of a large portion both of the rest of the clergy and\nalso of the laity; and, whatever may be the precise action which has\nbeen taken in the matter, it is unquestionable that a very formidable\nmass of ecclesiastical authority and popular feeling is united against\ncertain principles or opinions which, whether rightly or wrongly, are\nattributed to us. No one will suppose that an impression so general can\nbe entirely founded on a mistake. Those who admit the bare orthodoxy of\nour doctrine will, under the circumstances, naturally conclude that in\nour way of holding or expounding it there must be something new and\nstrange, unfamiliar and bewildering, to those who are accustomed to the\nprevalent spirit of Catholic literature; something which our\nfellow-Catholics are not prepared to admit; something which can\nsufficiently explain misgivings so commonly and so sincerely\nentertained. Others may perhaps imagine that we are unconsciously\ndrifting away from the Church, or that we only professedly and\nhypocritically remain with her. But the Catholic critic will not forget\nthat charity is a fruit of our religion, and that his anxiety to do\njustice to those from whom he must differ ought always to be in equal\nproportion with his zeal. Relying, then, upon this spirit of fairness,\nconvinced of the sincerity of the opposition we encounter, and in order\nthat there may remain a distinct and intelligible record of the aim to\nwhich we dedicate our labours, we proceed to make that declaration which\nmay be justly asked of nameless writers, as a testimony of the purpose\nwhich has inspired our undertaking, and an abiding pledge of our\nconsistency.\n\nThis Review has been begun on a foundation which its conductors can\nnever abandon without treason to their own convictions, and infidelity\nto the objects they have publicly avowed. That foundation is a humble\nfaith in the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church, a devotion to\nher cause which controls every other interest, and an attachment to her\nauthority which no other influence can supplant. If in anything\npublished by us a passage can be found which is contrary to that\ndoctrine, incompatible with that devotion, or disrespectful to that\nauthority, we sincerely retract and lament it. No such passage was ever\nconsciously admitted into the pages either of the late _Rambler_ or of\nthis Review. But undoubtedly we may have committed errors in judgment,\nand admitted errors of fact; such mistakes are unavoidable in secular\nmatters, and no one is exempt from them in spiritual things except by\nthe constant assistance of Divine grace. Our wish and purpose are not to\ndeny faults, but to repair them; to instruct, not to disturb our\nreaders; to take down the barriers which shut out our Protestant\ncountrymen from the Church, not to raise up divisions within her pale;\nand to confirm and deepen, not to weaken, alter, or circumscribe the\nfaith of Catholics.\n\nThe most exalted methods of serving religion do not lie in the path of a\nperiodical which addresses a general audience. The appliances of the\nspiritual life belong to a more retired sphere--that of the priesthood,\nof the sacraments, of religious offices; that of prayer, meditation, and\nself-examination. They are profaned by exposure, and choked by the\ndistractions of public affairs. The world cannot be taken into the\nconfidence of our inner life, nor can the discussion of ascetic morality\nbe complicated with the secular questions of the day. To make the\nattempt would be to usurp and degrade a holier office. The function of\nthe journalist is on another level. He may toil in the same service, but\nnot in the same rank, as the master-workman. His tools are coarser, his\nmethod less refined, and if his range is more extended, his influence is\nless intense. Literature, like government, assists religion, but it does\nso indirectly, and from without. The ends for which it works are\ndistinct from those of the Church, and yet subsidiary to them; and the\nmore independently each force achieves its own end, the more complete\nwill the ultimate agreement be found, and the more will religion profit.\nThe course of a periodical publication in its relation to the Church is\ndefined by this distinction of ends; its sphere is limited by the\ndifference and inferiority of the means which it employs, while the need\nfor its existence and its independence is vindicated by the necessity\nthere is for the service it performs.\n\nIt is the peculiar mission of the Church to be the channel of grace to\neach soul by her spiritual and pastoral action--she alone has this\nmission; but it is not her only work. She has also to govern and\neducate, so far as government and education are needful subsidiaries to\nher great work of the salvation of souls. By her discipline, her\nmorality, her law, she strives to realise the divine order upon earth;\nwhile by her intellectual labour she seeks an even fuller knowledge of\nthe works, the ideas, and the nature of God. But the ethical and\nintellectual offices of the Church, as distinct from her spiritual\noffice, are not hers exclusively or peculiarly. They were discharged,\nhowever imperfectly, before she was founded; and they are discharged\nstill, independently of her, by two other authorities,--science and\nsociety; the Church cannot perform all these functions by herself, nor,\nconsequently, can she absorb their direction. The political and\nintellectual orders remain permanently distinct from the spiritual. They\nfollow their own ends, they obey their own laws, and in doing so they\nsupport the cause of religion by the discovery of truth and the\nupholding of right. They render this service by fulfilling their own\nends independently and unrestrictedly, not by surrendering them for the\nsake of spiritual interests. Whatever diverts government and science\nfrom their own spheres, or leads religion to usurp their domains,\nconfounds distinct authorities, and imperils not only political right\nand scientific truths, but also the cause of faith and morals. A\ngovernment that, for the interests of religion, disregards political\nright, and a science that, for the sake of protecting faith, wavers and\ndissembles in the pursuit of knowledge, are instruments at least as well\nadapted to serve the cause of falsehood as to combat it, and never can\nbe used in furtherance of the truth without that treachery to principle\nwhich is a sacrifice too costly to be made for the service of any\ninterest whatever.\n\nAgain, the principles of religion, government, and science are in\nharmony, always and absolutely; but their interests are not. And though\nall other interests must yield to those of religion, no principle can\nsuccumb to any interest. A political law or a scientific truth may be\nperilous to the morals or the faith of individuals, but it cannot on\nthis ground be resisted by the Church. It may at times be a duty of the\nState to protect freedom of conscience, yet this freedom may be a\ntemptation to apostasy. A discovery may be made in science which will\nshake the faith of thousands, yet religion cannot refute it or object to\nit. The difference in this respect between a true and a false religion\nis, that one judges all things by the standard of their truth, the other\nby the touchstone of its own interests. A false religion fears the\nprogress of all truth; a true religion seeks and recognises truth\nwherever it can be found, and claims the power of regulating and\ncontrolling, not the progress, but the dispensation of knowledge. The\nChurch both accepts the truth and prepares the individual to receive it.\n\nThe religious world has been long divided upon this great question: Do\nwe find principles in politics and in science? Are their methods so\nrigorous that we may not bend them, their conclusions so certain that we\nmay not dissemble them, in presence of the more rigorous necessity of\nthe salvation of souls and the more certain truth of the dogmas of\nfaith? This question divides Protestants into rationalists and pietists.\nThe Church solves it in practice, by admitting the truths and the\nprinciples in the gross, and by dispensing them in detail as men can\nbear them. She admits the certainty of the mathematical method, and she\nuses the historical and critical method in establishing the documents of\nher own revelation and tradition. Deny this method, and her recognised\narguments are destroyed. But the Church cannot and will not deny the\nvalidity of the methods upon which she is obliged to depend, not indeed\nfor her existence, but for her demonstration. There is no opening for\nCatholics to deny, in the gross, that political science may have\nabsolute principles of right, or intellectual science of truth.\n\nDuring the last hundred years Catholic literature has passed through\nthree phases in relation to this question. At one time, when absolutism\nand infidelity were in the ascendant, and the Church was oppressed by\ngovernments and reviled by the people, Catholic writers imitated, and\neven caricatured the early Christian apologists in endeavouring to\nrepresent their system in the light most acceptable to one side or the\nother, to disguise antagonism, to modify old claims, and to display only\nthat side of their religion which was likely to attract toleration and\ngood will. Nothing which could give offence was allowed to appear.\nSomething of the fulness, if not of the truth, of religion was\nsacrificed for the sake of conciliation. The great Catholic revival of\nthe present century gave birth to an opposite school. The attitude of\ntimidity and concession was succeeded by one of confidence and triumph.\nConciliation passed into defiance. The unscrupulous falsehoods of the\neighteenth century had thrown suspicion on all that had ever been\nadvanced by the adversaries of religion; and the belief that nothing\ncould be said for the Church gradually died away into the conviction\nthat nothing which was said against her could be true. A school of\nwriters arose strongly imbued with a horror of the calumnies of infidel\nphilosophers and hostile controversialists, and animated by a sovereign\ndesire to revive and fortify the spirit of Catholics. They became\nliterary advocates. Their only object was to accomplish the great work\nbefore them; and they were often careless in statement, rhetorical and\nillogical in argument, too positive to be critical, and too confident to\nbe precise. In this school the present generation of Catholics was\neducated; to it they owe the ardour of their zeal, the steadfastness of\ntheir faith, and their Catholic views of history, politics, and\nliterature. The services of these writers have been very great. They\nrestored the balance, which was leaning terribly against religion, both\nin politics and letters. They created a Catholic opinion and a great\nCatholic literature, and they conquered for the Church a very powerful\ninfluence in European thought. The word \"ultramontane\" was revived to\ndesignate this school, and that restricted term was made to embrace men\nas different as De Maistre and Bonald, Lamennais and Montalembert,\nBalmez and Donoso Cortes, Stolberg and Schlegel, Phillips and\nTapparelli.\n\nThere are two peculiarities by which we may test this whole group of\neminent writers: their identification of Catholicism with some secular\ncause, such as the interests of a particular political or philosophical\nsystem, and the use they make of Protestant authorities. The views which\nthey endeavoured to identify with the cause of the Church, however\nvarious, agreed in giving them the air of partisans. Like advocates,\nthey were wont to defend their cause with the ingenuity of those who\nknow that all points are not equally strong, and that nothing can be\nconceded except what they can defend. They did much for the cause of\nlearning, though they took little interest in what did not immediately\nserve their turn. In their use of Protestant writers they displayed the\nsame partiality. They estimated a religious adversary, not by his\nknowledge, but by his concessions; and they took advantage of the\nprogress of historical criticism, not to revise their opinions, but to\nobtain testimony to their truth. It was characteristic of the school to\nbe eager in citing the favourable passages from Protestant authors, and\nto be careless of those which were less serviceable for discussion. In\nthe principal writers this tendency was counteracted by character and\nlearning; but in the hands of men less competent or less suspicious of\nthemselves, sore pressed by the necessities of controversy, and too\nobscure to challenge critical correction, the method became a snare for\nboth the writer and his readers. Thus the very qualities which we\ncondemn in our opponents, as the natural defences of error and the\nsignificant emblems of a bad cause, came to taint both our literature\nand our policy.\n\nLearning has passed on beyond the range of these men's vision. Their\ngreatest strength was in the weakness of their adversaries, and their\nown faults were eclipsed by the monstrous errors against which they\nfought. But scientific methods have now been so perfected, and have come\nto be applied in so cautious and so fair a spirit, that the apologists\nof the last generation have collapsed before them. Investigations have\nbecome so impersonal, so colourless, so free from the prepossessions\nwhich distort truth, from predetermined aims and foregone conclusions,\nthat their results can only be met by investigations in which the same\nmethods are yet more completely and conscientiously applied. The sounder\nscholar is invincible by the brilliant rhetorician, and the eloquence\nand ingenuity of De Maistre and Schlegel would be of no avail against\nresearches pursued with perfect mastery of science and singleness of\npurpose. The apologist's armour would be vulnerable at the point where\nhis religion and his science were forced into artificial union. Again,\nas science widens and deepens, it escapes from the grasp of\ndilettantism. Such knowledge as existed formerly could be borrowed, or\nsuperficially acquired, by men whose lives were not devoted to its\npursuit, and subjects as far apart as the controversies of Scripture,\nhistory, and physical science might be respectably discussed by a single\nwriter. No such shallow versatility is possible now. The new accuracy\nand certainty of criticism have made science unattainable except by\nthose who devote themselves systematically to its study. The training of\na skilled labourer has become indispensable for the scholar, and science\nyields its results to none but those who have mastered its methods.\nHerein consists the distinction between the apologists we have described\nand that school of writers and thinkers which is now growing up in\nforeign countries, and on the triumph of which the position of the\nChurch in modern society depends. While she was surrounded with men\nwhose learning was sold to the service of untruth, her defenders\nnaturally adopted the artifices of the advocate, and wrote as if they\nwere pleading for a human cause. It was their concern only to promote\nthose precise kinds and portions of knowledge which would confound an\nadversary, or support a claim. But learning ceased to be hostile to\nChristianity when it ceased to be pursued merely as an instrument of\ncontroversy--when facts came to be acknowledged, no longer because they\nwere useful, but simply because they were true. Religion had no occasion\nto rectify the results of learning when irreligion had ceased to pervert\nthem, and the old weapons of controversy became repulsive as soon as\nthey had ceased to be useful.\n\nBy this means the authority of political right and of scientific truth\nhas been re-established, and they have become, not tools to be used by\nreligion for her own interests, but conditions which she must observe in\nher actions and arguments. Within their respective spheres, politics can\ndetermine what rights are just, science what truths are certain. There\nare few political or scientific problems which affect the doctrines of\nreligion, and none of them are hostile to it in their solution. But this\nis not the difficulty which is usually felt. A political principle or a\nscientific discovery is more commonly judged, not by its relation to\nreligious truth, but by its bearings on some manifest or probable\nreligious interests. A fact may be true, or a law may be just, and yet\nit may, under certain conditions, involve some spiritual loss.\n\nAnd here is the touchstone and the watershed of principles. Some men\nargue that the object of government is to contribute to the salvation of\nsouls; that certain measures may imperil this end, and that therefore\nthey must be condemned. These men only look to interests; they cannot\nconceive the duty of sacrificing them to independent political principle\nor idea. Or, again, they will say, \"Here is a scientific discovery\ncalculated to overthrow many traditionary ideas, to undo a prevailing\nsystem of theology, to disprove a current interpretation, to cast\ndiscredit on eminent authorities, to compel men to revise their most\nsettled opinions, to disturb the foundation on which the faith of others\nstands.\" These are sufficient reasons for care in the dispensation of\ntruth; but the men we are describing will go on to say, \"This is enough\nto throw suspicion on the discovery itself; even if it is true, its\ndanger is greater than its value. Let it, therefore, be carefully\nburied, and let all traces of it be swept away.\"\n\nA policy like this appears to us both wrong in itself and derogatory to\nthe cause it is employed to serve. It argues either a timid faith which\nfears the light, or a false morality which would do evil that good might\ncome. How often have Catholics involved themselves in hopeless\ncontradiction, sacrificed principle to opportunity, adapted their\ntheories to their interests, and staggered the world's reliance on their\nsincerity by subterfuges which entangle the Church in the shifting sands\nof party warfare, instead of establishing her cause on the solid rock of\nprinciples! How often have they clung to some plausible chimera which\nseemed to serve their cause, and nursed an artificial ignorance where\nthey feared the discoveries of an impertinent curiosity! As ingenious in\ndetraction as in silence and dissimulation, have they not too often\nanswered imputations which they could not disprove with accusations\nwhich they could not prove, till the slanders they had invented rivalled\nin number and intensity the slanders which had been invented against\nthem? For such men principles have had only temporary value and local\ncurrency. Whatever force was the strongest in any place and at any time,\nwith that they have sought to ally the cause of religion. They have,\nwith equal zeal, identified her with freedom in one country and with\nabsolutism in another; with conservatism where she had privileges to\nkeep, and with reform where she had oppression to withstand. And for all\nthis, what have they gained? They have betrayed duties more sacred than\nthe privileges for which they fought; they have lied before God and man;\nthey have been divided into fractions by the supposed interests of the\nChurch, when they ought to have been united by her principles and her\ndoctrines; and against themselves they have justified those grave\naccusations of falsehood, insincerity, indifference to civil rights and\ncontempt for civil authorities which are uttered with such profound\ninjustice against the Church.\n\nThe present difficulties of the Church--her internal dissensions and\napparent weakness, the alienation of so much intellect, the strong\nprejudice which keeps many away from her altogether, and makes many who\nhad approached her shrink back,--all draw nourishment from this rank\nsoil. The antagonism of hostile doctrines and the enmity of governments\ncount for little in comparison. It is in vain to point to her apostolic\ntradition, the unbroken unity of her doctrine, her missionary energy, or\nher triumphs in the region of spiritual life, if we fail to remove the\naccumulated prejudice which generations of her advocates have thrown up\naround her. The world can never know and recognise her divine perfection\nwhile the pleas of her defenders are scarcely nearer to the truth than\nthe crimes which her enemies impute to her. How can the stranger\nunderstand where the children of the kingdom are deceived?\n\nAgainst this policy a firm and unyielding stand is of supreme necessity.\nThe evil is curable and the loss recoverable by a conscientious\nadherence to higher principles, and a patient pursuit of truth and\nright. Political science can place the liberty of the Church on\nprinciples so certain and unfailing, that intelligent and disinterested\nProtestants will accept them; and in every branch of learning with which\nreligion is in any way connected, the progressive discovery of truth\nwill strengthen faith by promoting knowledge and correcting opinion,\nwhile it destroys prejudices and superstitions by dissipating the errors\non which they are founded. This is a course which conscience must\napprove in the whole, though against each particular step of it\nconscience may itself be tempted to revolt. It does not always conduce\nto immediate advantage; it may lead across dangerous and scandalous\nground. A rightful sovereign may exclude the Church from his dominions,\nor persecute her members. Is she therefore to say that his right is no\nright, or that all intolerance is necessarily wrong? A newly discovered\ntruth may be a stumbling-block to perplex or to alienate the minds of\nmen. Is she therefore to deny or smother it? By no means. She must in\nevery case do right. She must prefer the law of her own general spirit\nto the exigencies of immediate external occasion, and leave the issue in\nthe hands of God.\n\nSuch is the substance of those principles which shut out _The Home and\nForeign Review_ from the sympathies of a large portion of the body to\nwhich we belong. In common with no small or insignificant section of our\nfellow-Catholics, we hold that the time has gone by when defects in\npolitical or scientific education could be alleged as an excuse for\ndepending upon expediency or mistrusting knowledge; and that the moment\nhas come when the best service that can be done to religion is to be\nfaithful to principle, to uphold the right in politics though it should\nrequire an apparent sacrifice, and to seek truth in science though it\nshould involve a possible risk. Modern society has developed no security\nfor freedom, no instrument of progress, no means of arriving at truth,\nwhich we look upon with indifference or suspicion. We see no necessary\ngulf to separate our political or scientific convictions from those of\nthe wisest and most intelligent men who may differ from us in religion.\nIn pursuing those studies in which they can sympathise, starting from\nprinciples which they can accept, and using methods which are theirs as\nwell as ours, we shall best attain the objects which alone can be aimed\nat in a Review,--our own instruction, and the conciliation of opponents.\n\nThere are two main considerations by which it is necessary that we\nshould be guided in our pursuit of these objects. First, we have to\nremember that the scientific method is most clearly exhibited and\nrecognised in connection with subjects about which there are no\nprepossessions to wound, no fears to excite, no interests to threaten.\nHence, not only do we exclude from our range all that concerns the\nascetic life and the more intimate relations of religion, but we most\nwillingly devote ourselves to the treatment of subjects quite remote\nfrom all religious bearing. Secondly, we have to remember that the\ninternal government of the Church belongs to a sphere exclusively\necclesiastical, from the discussion of which we are shut out, not only\nby motives of propriety and reverence, but also by the necessary absence\nof any means for forming a judgment. So much ground is fenced off by\nthese two considerations, that a secular sphere alone remains. The\ncharacter of a scientific Review is determined for it. It cannot enter\non the domains of ecclesiastical government or of faith, and neither of\nthem can possibly be affected by its conclusions or its mode of\ndiscussion.\n\nIn asserting thus absolutely that all truth must render service to\nreligion, we are saying what few perhaps will deny in the abstract, but\nwhat many are not prepared to admit in detail. It will be vaguely felt,\nthat views which take so little account of present inconvenience and\nmanifest danger are perilous and novel, though they may seem to spring\nfrom a more unquestioning faith, a more absolute confidence in truth,\nand a more perfect submission to the general laws of morality. There is\nno articulate theory, and no distinct view, but there is long habit, and\nthere are strong inducements of another kind which support this\nsentiment.\n\nTo understand the certainty of scientific truth, a man must have deeply\nstudied scientific method; to understand the obligation of political\nprinciple requires a similar mental discipline. A man who is suddenly\nintroduced from without into a society where this certainty and\nobligation are currently acknowledged is naturally bewildered. He cannot\ndistinguish between the dubious impressions of his second-hand knowledge\nand the certainty of that primary direct information which those who\npossess it have no power to deny. To accept a criterion which may\ncondemn some cherished opinion has hitherto seemed to him a mean\nsurrender and a sacrifice of position. He feels it simple loss to give\nup an idea; and even if he is prepared to surrender it when compelled by\ncontroversy, still he thinks it quite unnecessary and gratuitous to\nengage voluntarily in researches which may lead to such an issue. To\nenter thus upon the discussion of questions which have been mixed up\nwith religion, and made to contribute their support to piety, seems to\nthe idle spectator, or to the person who is absorbed in defending\nreligion, a mere useless and troublesome meddling, dictated by the pride\nof intellectual triumph, or by the moral cowardice which seeks\nunworthily to propitiate enemies.\n\nGreat consideration is due to those whose minds are not prepared for the\nfull light of truth and the grave responsibilities of knowledge; who\nhave not learned to distinguish what is divine from what is\nhuman--defined dogma from the atmosphere of opinion which surrounds\nit,--and who honour both with the same awful reverence. Great allowances\nare also due to those who are constantly labouring to nourish the spark\nof belief in minds perplexed by difficulties, or darkened by ignorance\nand prejudice. These men have not always the results of research at\ncommand; they have no time to keep abreast with the constant progress of\nhistorical and critical science; and the solutions which they are\nobliged to give are consequently often imperfect, and adapted only to\nuninstructed and uncultivated minds. Their reasoning cannot be the same\nas that of the scholar who has to meet error in its most vigorous,\nrefined, and ingenious form. As knowledge advances, it must inevitably\nhappen that they will find some of their hitherto accepted facts\ncontradicted, and some arguments overturned which have done good\nservice. They will find that some statements, which they have adopted\nunder stress of controversy, to remove prejudice and doubt, turn out to\nbe hasty and partial replies to the questions they were meant to answer,\nand that the true solutions would require more copious explanation than\nthey can give. And thus will be brought home to their minds that, in the\ntopics upon which popular controversy chiefly turns, the conditions of\ndiscussion and the resources of arguments are subject to gradual and\nconstant change.\n\nA Review, therefore, which undertakes to investigate political and\nscientific problems, without any direct subservience to the interests of\na party or a cause, but with the belief that such investigation, by its\nvery independence and straightforwardness, must give the most valuable\nindirect assistance to religion, cannot expect to enjoy at once the\nfavour of those who have grown up in another school of ideas. Men who\nare occupied in the special functions of ecclesiastical life, where the\nChurch is all-sufficient and requires no extraneous aid, will naturally\nsee at first in the problems of public life, the demands of modern\nsociety, and the progress of human learning, nothing but new and\nunwelcome difficulties,--trial and distraction to themselves, temptation\nand danger to their flocks. In time they will learn that there is a\nhigher and a nobler course for Catholics than one which begins in fear\nand does not lead to security. They will come to see how vast a service\nthey may render to the Church by vindicating for themselves a place in\nevery movement that promotes the study of God's works and the\nadvancement of mankind. They will remember that, while the office of\necclesiastical authority is to tolerate, to warn, and to guide, that of\nreligious intelligence and zeal is not to leave the great work of\nintellectual and social civilisation to be the monopoly and privilege of\nothers, but to save it from debasement by giving to it for leaders the\nchildren, not the enemies, of the Church. And at length, in the progress\nof political right and scientific knowledge, in the development of\nfreedom in the State and of truth in literature, they will recognise one\nof the first among their human duties and the highest of their earthly\nrewards.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 339: \"Rome and the Catholic Episcopate. Reply of His Eminence\nCardinal Wiseman to an Address presented by the Clergy, Secular and\nRegular, of the Archdiocese of Westminster, on Tuesday, the 5th of\nAugust 1862.\" London: Burns and Lambert. (_Home and Foreign Review_,\n1862.)]\n\n\n\n\nXIII\n\nCONFLICTS WITH ROME[340]\n\n\nAmong the causes which have brought dishonour on the Church in recent\nyears, none have had a more fatal operation than those conflicts with\nscience and literature which have led men to dispute the competence, or\nthe justice, or the wisdom, of her authorities. Rare as such conflicts\nhave been, they have awakened a special hostility which the defenders of\nCatholicism have not succeeded in allaying. They have induced a\nsuspicion that the Church, in her zeal for the prevention of error,\nrepresses that intellectual freedom which is essential to the progress\nof truth; that she allows an administrative interference with\nconvictions to which she cannot attach the stigma of falsehood; and that\nshe claims a right to restrain the growth of knowledge, to justify an\nacquiescence in ignorance, to promote error, and even to alter at her\narbitrary will the dogmas that are proposed to faith. There are few\nfaults or errors imputed to Catholicism which individual Catholics have\nnot committed or held, and the instances on which these particular\naccusations are founded have sometimes been supplied by the acts of\nauthority itself. Dishonest controversy loves to confound the personal\nwith the spiritual element in the Church--to ignore the distinction\nbetween the sinful agents and the divine institution. And this confusion\nmakes it easy to deny, what otherwise would be too evident to question,\nthat knowledge has a freedom in the Catholic Church which it can find in\nno other religion; though there, as elsewhere, freedom degenerates\nunless it has to struggle in its own defence.\n\nNothing can better illustrate this truth than the actual course of\nevents in the cases of Lamennais and Frohschammer. They are two of the\nmost conspicuous instances in point; and they exemplify the opposite\nmistakes through which a haze of obscurity has gathered over the true\nnotions of authority and freedom in the Church. The correspondence of\nLamennais and the later writings of Frohschammer furnish a revelation\nwhich ought to warn all those who, through ignorance, or timidity, or\nweakness of faith, are tempted to despair of the reconciliation between\nscience and religion, and to acquiesce either in the subordination of\none to the other, or in their complete separation and estrangement. Of\nthese alternatives Lamennais chose the first, Frohschammer the second;\nand the exaggeration of the claims of authority by the one and the\nextreme assertion of independence by the other have led them, by\ncontrary paths, to nearly the same end.\n\nWhen Lamennais surveyed the fluctuations of science, the multitude of\nopinions, the confusion and conflict of theories, he was led to doubt\nthe efficacy of all human tests of truth. Science seemed to him\nessentially tainted with hopeless uncertainty. In his ignorance of its\nmethods he fancied them incapable of attaining to anything more than a\ngreater or less degree of probability, and powerless to afford a strict\ndemonstration, or to distinguish the deposit of real knowledge amidst\nthe turbid current of opinion. He refused to admit that there is a\nsphere within which metaphysical philosophy speaks with absolute\ncertainty, or that the landmarks set up by history and natural science\nmay be such as neither authority nor prescription, neither the doctrine\nof the schools nor the interest of the Church, has the power to disturb\nor the right to evade. These sciences presented to his eyes a chaos\nincapable of falling into order and harmony by any internal\nself-development, and requiring the action of an external director to\nclear up its darkness and remove its uncertainty. He thought that no\nresearch, however rigorous, could make sure of any fragment of knowledge\nworthy the name. He admitted no certainty but that which relied on the\ngeneral tradition of mankind, recorded and sanctioned by the infallible\njudgment of the Holy See. He would have all power committed, and every\nquestion referred, to that supreme and universal authority. By its means\nhe would supply all the gaps in the horizon of the human intellect,\nsettle every controversy, solve the problems of science, and regulate\nthe policy of states.\n\nThe extreme Ultramontanism which seeks the safeguard of faith in the\nabsolutism of Rome he believed to be the keystone of the Catholic\nsystem. In his eyes all who rejected it, the Jesuits among them, were\nGallicans; and Gallicanism was the corruption of the Christian\nidea.[341] \"If my principles are rejected,\" he wrote on the 1st of\nNovember 1820, \"I see no means of defending religion effectually, no\ndecisive answer to the objections of the unbelievers of our time. How\ncould these principles be favourable to them? they are simply the\ndevelopment of the great Catholic maxim, _quod semper, quod ubique, quod\nab omnibus_.\" Joubert said of him, with perfect justice, that when he\ndestroyed all the bases of human certainty, in order to retain no\nfoundation but authority, he destroyed authority itself. The confidence\nwhich led him to confound the human element with the divine in the Holy\nSee was destined to be tried by the severest of all tests; and his\nexaggeration of the infallibility of the Pope proved fatal to his\nreligious faith.\n\nIn 1831 the Roman Breviary was not to be bought in Paris. We may hence\nmeasure the amount of opposition with which Lamennais's endeavours to\nexalt Rome would be met by the majority of the French bishops and\nclergy, and by the school of St. Sulpice. For him, on the other hand, no\nterms were too strong to express his animosity against those who\nrejected his teaching and thwarted his designs. The bishops he railed\nat as idiotic devotees, incredibly blind, supernaturally foolish. \"The\nJesuits,\" he said, \"were _grenadiers de la folie_, and united imbecility\nwith the vilest passions.\"[342] He fancied that in many dioceses there\nwas a conspiracy to destroy religion, that a schism was at hand, and\nthat the resistance of the clergy to his principles threatened to\ndestroy Catholicism in France. Rome, he was sure, would help him in his\nstruggle against her faithless assailants, on behalf of her authority,\nand in his endeavour to make the clergy refer their disputes to her, so\nas to receive from the Pope's mouth the infallible oracles of eternal\ntruth.[343] Whatever the Pope might decide, would, he said, be right,\nfor the Pope alone was infallible. Bishops might be sometimes resisted,\nbut the Pope never.[344] It was both absurd and blasphemous even to\nadvise him. \"I have read in the _Diario di Roma_,\" he said, \"the advice\nof M. de Chateaubriand to the Holy Ghost. At any rate, the Holy Ghost is\nfully warned; and if he makes a mistake this time, it will not be the\nambassador's fault.\"\n\nThree Popes passed away, and still nothing was done against the traitors\nhe was for ever denouncing. This reserve astounded him. Was Rome herself\ntainted with Gallicanism, and in league with those who had conspired for\nher destruction? What but a schism could ensue from this inexplicable\napathy? The silence was a grievous trial to his faith. \"Let us shut our\neyes,\" he said, \"let us invoke the Holy Spirit, let us collect all the\npowers of our soul, that our faith may not be shaken.\"[345] In his\nperplexity he began to make distinctions between the Pope and the Roman\nCourt. The advisers of the Pope were traitors, dwellers in the outer\ndarkness, blind and deaf; the Pope himself and he alone was infallible,\nand would never act so as to injure the faith, though meanwhile he was\nnot aware of the real state of things, and was evidently deceived by\nfalse reports.[346] A few months later came the necessity for a further\ndistinction between the Pontiff and the Sovereign. If the doctrines of\nthe _Avenir_ had caused displeasure at Rome, it was only on political\ngrounds. If the Pope was offended, he was offended not as Vicar of\nChrist, but as a temporal monarch implicated in the political system of\nEurope. In his capacity of spiritual head of the Church he could not\ncondemn writers for sacrificing all human and political considerations\nto the supreme interests of the Church, but must in reality agree with\nthem.[347] As the Polish Revolution brought the political questions into\ngreater prominence, Lamennais became more and more convinced of the\nwickedness of those who surrounded Gregory XVI., and of the political\nincompetence of the Pope himself. He described him as weeping and\npraying, motionless, amidst the darkness which the ambitious, corrupt,\nand frantic idiots around him were ever striving to thicken.[348] Still\nhe felt secure. When the foundations of the Church were threatened, when\nan essential doctrine was at stake, though, for the first time in\neighteen centuries, the supreme authority might refuse to speak,[349] at\nleast it could not speak out against the truth. In this belief he made\nhis last journey to Rome. Then came his condemnation. The staff on which\nhe leaned with all his weight broke in his hands; the authority he had\nso grossly exaggerated turned against him, and his faith was left\nwithout support. His system supplied no resource for such an emergency.\nHe submitted, not because he was in error, but because Catholics had no\nright to defend the Church against the supreme will even of an erring\nPontiff.[350] He was persuaded that his silence would injure religion,\nyet he deemed it his duty to be silent and to abandon theology. He had\nceased to believe that the Pope could not err, but he still believed\nthat he could not lawfully be disobeyed. In the two years during which\nhe still remained in the Church his faith in her system fell rapidly to\npieces. Within two months after the publication of the Encyclical he\nwrote that the Pope, like the other princes, seemed careful not to omit\nany blunder that could secure his annihilation.[351] Three weeks\nafterwards he denounced in the fiercest terms the corruption of Rome. He\npredicted that the ecclesiastical hierarchy was about to depart with the\nold monarchies; and, though the Church could not die, he would not\nundertake to say that she would revive in her old forms.[352] The Pope,\nhe said, had so zealously embraced the cause of antichristian despotism\nas to sacrifice to it the religion of which he was the chief. He no\nlonger felt it possible to distinguish what was immutable in the\nexternal organisation of the Church. He admitted the personal\nfallibility of the Pope, and declared that, though it was impossible,\nwithout Rome, to defend Catholicism successfully, yet nothing could be\nhoped for from her, and that she seemed to have condemned Catholicism to\ndie.[353] The Pope, he soon afterwards said, was in league with the\nkings in opposition to the eternal truths of religion, the hierarchy was\nout of court, and a transformation like that from which the Church and\nPapacy had sprung was about to bring them both to an end, after eighteen\ncenturies, in Gregory XVI.[354] Before the following year was over he\nhad ceased to be in communion with the Catholic Church.\n\nThe fall of Lamennais, however impressive as a warning, is of no great\nhistorical importance; for he carried no one with him, and his favourite\ndisciples became the ablest defenders of Catholicism in France. But it\nexemplifies one of the natural consequences of dissociating secular from\nreligious truth, and denying that they hold in solution all the elements\nnecessary for their reconciliation and union. In more recent times, the\nsame error has led, by a contrary path, to still more lamentable\nresults, and scepticism on the possibility of harmonising reason and\nfaith has once more driven a philosopher into heresy. Between the fall\nof Lamennais and the conflict with Frohschammer many metaphysical\nwriters among the Catholic clergy had incurred the censures of Rome. It\nis enough to cite Bautain in France, Rosmini in Italy, and Guenther in\nAustria. But in these cases no scandal ensued, and the decrees were\nreceived with prompt and hearty submission. In the cases of Lamennais\nand Frohschammer no speculative question was originally at issue, but\nonly the question of authority. A comparison between their theories will\nexplain the similarity in the courses of the two men, and at the same\ntime will account for the contrast between the isolation of Lamennais\nand the influence of Frohschammer, though the one was the most eloquent\nwriter in France, and the head of a great school, and the other, before\nthe late controversy, was not a writer of much name. This contrast is\nthe more remarkable since religion had not revived in France when the\nFrench philosopher wrote, while for the last quarter of a century\nBavaria has been distinguished among Catholic nations for the faith of\nher people. Yet Lamennais was powerless to injure a generation of\ncomparatively ill-instructed Catholics, while Frohschammer, with\ninferior gifts of persuasion, has won educated followers even in the\nhome of Ultramontanism.\n\nThe first obvious explanation of this difficulty is the narrowness of\nLamennais's philosophy. At the time of his dispute with the Holy See he\nhad somewhat lost sight of his traditionalist theory; and his attention,\nconcentrated upon politics, was directed to the problem of reconciling\nreligion with liberty,--a question with which the best minds in France\nare still occupied. But how can a view of policy constitute a\nphilosophy? He began by thinking that it was expedient for the Church to\nobtain the safeguards of freedom, and that she should renounce the\nlosing cause of the old _regime_. But this was no more philosophy than\nthe similar argument which had previously won her to the side of\ndespotism when it was the stronger cause. As Bonald, however, had\nerected absolute monarchy into a dogma, so Lamennais proceeded to do\nwith freedom. The Church, he said, was on the side of freedom, because\nit was the just side, not because it was the stronger. As De Maistre had\nseen the victory of Catholic principles in the Restoration, so Lamennais\nsaw it in the revolution of 1830.\n\nThis was obviously too narrow and temporary a basis for a philosophy.\nThe Church is interested, not in the triumph of a principle or a cause\nwhich may be dated as that of 1789, or of 1815, or of 1830, but in the\ntriumph of justice and the just cause, whether it be that of the people\nor of the Crown, of a Catholic party or of its opponents. She admits the\ntests of public law and political science. When these proclaim the\nexistence of the conditions which justify an insurrection or a war, she\ncannot condemn that insurrection or that war. She is guided in her\njudgment on these causes by criteria which are not her own, but are\nborrowed from departments over which she has no supreme control. This is\nas true of science as it is of law and politics. Other truths are as\ncertain as those which natural or positive law embraces, and other\nobligations as imperative as those which regulate the relations of\nsubjects and authorities. The principle which places right above\nexpedience in the political action of the Church has an equal\napplication in history or in astronomy. The Church can no more identify\nher cause with scientific error than with political wrong. Her interests\nmay be impaired by some measure of political justice, or by the\nadmission of some fact or document. But in neither case can she guard\nher interests at the cost of denying the truth.\n\nThis is the principle which has so much difficulty in obtaining\nrecognition in an age when science is more or less irreligious, and when\nCatholics more or less neglect its study. Political and intellectual\nliberty have the same claims and the same conditions in the eyes of the\nChurch. The Catholic judges the measures of governments and the\ndiscoveries of science in exactly the same manner. Public law may make\nit imperative to overthrow a Catholic monarch, like James II., or to\nuphold a Protestant monarch, like the King of Prussia. The\ndemonstrations of science may oblige us to believe that the earth\nrevolves round the sun, or that the _donation of Constantine_ is\nspurious. The apparent interests of religion have much to say against\nall this; but religion itself prevents those considerations from\nprevailing. This has not been seen by those writers who have done most\nin defence of the principle. They have usually considered it from the\nstanding ground of their own practical aims, and have therefore failed\nto attain that general view which might have been suggested to them by\nthe pursuit of truth as a whole. French writers have done much for\npolitical liberty, and Germans for intellectual liberty; but the\ndefenders of the one cause have generally had so little sympathy with\nthe other, that they have neglected to defend their own on the grounds\ncommon to both. There is hardly a Catholic writer who has penetrated to\nthe common source from which they spring. And this is the greatest\ndefect in Catholic literature, even to the present day.\n\nIn the majority of those who have afforded the chief examples of this\nerror, and particularly in Lamennais, the weakness of faith which it\nimplies has been united with that looseness of thought which resolves\nall knowledge into opinion, and fails to appreciate methodical\ninvestigation or scientific evidence. But it is less easy to explain how\na priest, fortified with the armour of German science, should have\nfailed as completely in the same inquiry. In order to solve the\ndifficulty, we must go back to the time when the theory of Frohschammer\narose, and review some of the circumstances out of which it sprang.\n\nFor adjusting the relations between science and authority, the method of\nRome had long been that of economy and accommodation. In dealing with\nliterature, her paramount consideration was the fear of scandal. Books\nwere forbidden, not merely because their statements were denied, but\nbecause they seemed injurious to morals, derogatory to authority, or\ndangerous to faith. To be so, it was not necessary that they should be\nuntrue. For isolated truths separated from other known truths by an\ninterval of conjecture, in which error might find room to construct its\nworks, may offer perilous occasions to unprepared and unstable minds.\nThe policy was therefore to allow such truths to be put forward only\nhypothetically, or altogether to suppress them. The latter alternative\nwas especially appropriated to historical investigations, because they\ncontained most elements of danger. In them the progress of knowledge has\nbeen for centuries constant, rapid, and sure; every generation has\nbrought to light masses of information previously unknown, the\nsuccessive publication of which furnished ever new incentives, and more\nand more ample means of inquiry into ecclesiastical history. This\ninquiry has gradually laid bare the whole policy and process of\necclesiastical authority, and has removed from the past that veil of\nmystery wherewith, like all other authorities, it tries to surround the\npresent. The human element in ecclesiastical administration endeavours\nto keep itself out of sight, and to deny its own existence, in order\nthat it may secure the unquestioning submission which authority\nnaturally desires, and may preserve that halo of infallibility which the\ntwilight of opinion enables it to assume. Now the most severe exposure\nof the part played by this human element is found in histories which\nshow the undeniable existence of sin, error, or fraud in the high places\nof the Church. Not, indeed, that any history furnishes, or can furnish,\nmaterials for undermining the authority which the dogmas of the Church\nproclaim to be necessary for her existence. But the true limits of\nlegitimate authority are one thing, and the area which authority may\nfind it expedient to attempt to occupy is another. The interests of the\nChurch are not necessarily identical with those of the ecclesiastical\ngovernment. A government does not desire its powers to be strictly\ndefined, but the subjects require the line to be drawn with increasing\nprecision. Authority may be protected by its subjects being kept in\nignorance of its faults, and by their holding it in superstitious\nadmiration. But religion has no communion with any manner of error: and\nthe conscience can only be injured by such arts, which, in reality, give\na far more formidable measure of the influence of the human element in\necclesiastical government than any collection of detached cases of\nscandal can do. For these arts are simply those of all human governments\nwhich possess legislative power, fear attack, deny responsibility, and\ntherefore shrink from scrutiny.\n\nOne of the great instruments for preventing historical scrutiny had long\nbeen the Index of prohibited books, which was accordingly directed, not\nagainst falsehood only, but particularly against certain departments of\ntruth. Through it an effort had been made to keep the knowledge of\necclesiastical history from the faithful, and to give currency to a\nfabulous and fictitious picture of the progress and action of the\nChurch. The means would have been found quite inadequate to the end, if\nit had not been for the fact that while society was absorbed by\ncontroversy, knowledge was only valued so far as it served a\ncontroversial purpose. Every party in those days virtually had its own\nprohibitive Index, to brand all inconvenient truths with the note of\nfalsehood. No party cared for knowledge that could not be made available\nfor argument. Neutral and ambiguous science had no attractions for men\nengaged in perpetual combat. Its spirit first won the naturalists, the\nmathematicians, and the philologists; then it vivified the otherwise\naimless erudition of the Benedictines; and at last it was carried into\nhistory, to give new life to those sciences which deal with the\ntradition, the law, and the action of the Church.\n\nThe home of this transformation was in the universities of Germany, for\nthere the Catholic teacher was placed in circumstances altogether novel.\nHe had to address men who had every opportunity of becoming familiar\nwith the arguments of the enemies of the Church, and with the\ndiscoveries and conclusions of those whose studies were without the bias\nof any religious object. Whilst he lectured in one room, the next might\nbe occupied by a pantheist, a rationalist, or a Lutheran, descanting on\nthe same topics. When he left the desk his place might be taken by some\ngreat original thinker or scholar, who would display all the results of\nhis meditations without regard for their tendency, and without\nconsidering what effects they might have on the weak. He was obliged\noften to draw attention to books lacking the Catholic spirit, but\nindispensable to the deeper student. Here, therefore, the system of\nsecrecy, economy, and accommodation was rendered impossible by the\ncompetition of knowledge, in which the most thorough exposition of the\ntruth was sure of the victory, and the system itself became inapplicable\nas the scientific spirit penetrated ecclesiastical literature in\nGermany.\n\nIn Rome, however, where the influences of competition were not felt, the\nreasons of the change could not be understood, nor its benefits\nexperienced; and it was thought absurd that the Germans of the\nnineteenth century should discard weapons which had been found\nefficacious with the Germans of the sixteenth. While in Rome it was\nstill held that the truths of science need not be told, and ought not to\nbe told, if, in the judgment of Roman theologians, they were of a nature\nto offend faith, in Germany Catholics vied with Protestants in\npublishing matter without being diverted by the consideration whether it\nmight serve or injure their cause in controversy, or whether it was\nadverse or favourable to the views which it was the object of the Index\nto protect. But though this great antagonism existed, there was no\ncollision. A moderation was exhibited which contrasted remarkably with\nthe aggressive spirit prevailing in France and Italy. Publications were\nsuffered to pass unnoted in Germany which would have been immediately\ncensured if they had come forth beyond the Alps or the Rhine. In this\nway a certain laxity grew up side by side with an unmeasured distrust,\nand German theologians and historians escaped censure.\n\nThis toleration gains significance from its contrast to the severity\nwith which Rome smote the German philosophers like Hermes and Guenther\nwhen they erred. Here, indeed, the case was very different. If Rome had\ninsisted upon suppressing documents, perverting facts, and resisting\ncriticism, she would have been only opposing truth, and opposing it\nconsciously, for fear of its inconveniences. But if she had refrained\nfrom denouncing a philosophy which denied creation or the personality of\nGod, she would have failed to assert her own doctrines against her own\nchildren who contradicted them. The philosopher cannot claim the same\nexemption as the historian. God's handwriting exists in history\nindependently of the Church, and no ecclesiastical exigence can alter a\nfact. The divine lesson has been read, and it is the historian's duty to\ncopy it faithfully without bias and without ulterior views. The Catholic\nmay be sure that as the Church has lived in spite of the fact, she will\nalso survive its publication. But philosophy has to deal with some facts\nwhich, although as absolute and objective in themselves, are not and\ncannot be known to us except through revelation, of which the Church is\nthe organ. A philosophy which requires the alteration of these facts is\nin patent contradiction against the Church. Both cannot coexist. One\nmust destroy the other.\n\nTwo circumstances very naturally arose to disturb this equilibrium.\nThere were divines who wished to extend to Germany the old authority of\nthe Index, and to censure or prohibit books which, though not heretical,\ncontained matter injurious to the reputation of ecclesiastical\nauthority, or contrary to the common opinions of Catholic theologians.\nOn the other hand, there were philosophers of the schools of Hermes and\nGuenther who would not retract the doctrines which the Church condemned.\nOne movement tended to repress even the knowledge of demonstrable truth,\nand the other aimed at destroying the dogmatic authority of the Holy\nSee. In this way a collision was prepared, which was eventually brought\nabout by the writings of Dr. Frohschammer.\n\nTen years ago, when he was a very young lecturer on philosophy in the\nuniversity of Munich, he published a work on the origin of the soul, in\nwhich he argued against the theory of pre-existence, and against the\ncommon opinion that each soul is created directly by Almighty God,\ndefending the theory of Generationism by the authority of several\nFathers, and quoting, among other modern divines, Klee, the author of\nthe most esteemed treatise of dogmatic theology in the German language.\nIt was decided at Rome that his book should be condemned, and he was\ninformed of the intention, in order that he might announce his\nsubmission before the publication of the decree.\n\nHis position was a difficult one, and it appears to be admitted that his\nconduct at this stage was not prompted by those opinions on the\nauthority of the Church in which he afterwards took refuge, but must be\nexplained by the known facts of the case. His doctrine had been lately\ntaught in a book generally read and approved. He was convinced that he\nhad at least refuted the opposite theories, and yet it was apparently in\nbehalf of one of these that he was condemned. Whatever errors his book\ncontained, he might fear that an act of submission would seem to imply\nhis acceptance of an opinion he heartily believed to be wrong, and would\ntherefore be an act of treason to truth. The decree conveyed no\nconviction to his mind. It is only the utterances of an infallible\nauthority that men can believe without argument and explanation, and\nhere was an authority not infallible, giving no reasons, and yet\nclaiming a submission of the reason. Dr. Frohschammer found himself in a\ndilemma. To submit absolutely would either be a virtual acknowledgment\nof the infallibility of the authority, or a confession that an\necclesiastical decision necessarily bound the mind irrespectively of its\ntruth or justice. In either case he would have contradicted the law of\nreligion and of the Church. To submit, while retaining his own opinion,\nto a disciplinary decree, in order to preserve peace and avoid scandal,\nand to make a general acknowledgment that his work contained various\nill-considered and equivocal statements which might bear a bad\nconstruction,--such a conditional submission either would not have been\nthat which the Roman Court desired and intended, or, if made without\nexplicit statement of its meaning, would have been in some measure\ndeceitful and hypocritical. In the first case it would not have been\nreceived, in the second case it could not have been made without loss of\nself-respect. Moreover, as the writer was a public professor, bound to\ninstruct his hearers according to his best knowledge, he could not\nchange his teaching while his opinion remained unchanged. These\nconsiderations, and not any desire to defy authority, or introduce new\nopinions by a process more or less revolutionary, appear to have guided\nhis conduct. At this period it might have been possible to arrive at an\nunderstanding, or to obtain satisfactory explanations, if the Roman\nCourt would have told him what points were at issue, what passages in\nhis book were impugned, and what were the grounds for suspecting them.\nIf there was on both sides a peaceful and conciliatory spirit, and a\ndesire to settle the problem, there was certainly a chance of effecting\nit by a candid interchange of explanations. It was a course which had\nproved efficacious on other occasions, and in the then recent discussion\nof Guenther's system it had been pursued with great patience and decided\nsuccess.\n\nBefore giving a definite reply, therefore, Dr. Frohschammer asked for\ninformation about the incriminated articles. This would have given him\nan opportunity of seeing his error, and making a submission _in foro\ninterno_. But the request was refused. It was a favour, he was told,\nsometimes extended to men whose great services to the Church deserved\nsuch consideration, but not to one who was hardly known except by the\nvery book which had incurred the censure. This answer instantly aroused\na suspicion that the Roman Court was more anxious to assert its\nauthority than to correct an alleged error, or to prevent a scandal. It\nwas well known that the mistrust of German philosophy was very deep at\nRome; and it seemed far from impossible that an intention existed to put\nit under all possible restraint.\n\nThis mistrust on the part of the Roman divines was fully equalled, and\nso far justified, by a corresponding literary contempt on the part of\nmany German Catholic scholars. It is easy to understand the grounds of\nthis feeling. The German writers were engaged in an arduous struggle, in\nwhich their antagonists were sustained by intellectual power, solid\nlearning, and deep thought, such as the defenders of the Church in\nCatholic countries have never had to encounter. In this conflict the\nItalian divines could render no assistance. They had shown themselves\naltogether incompetent to cope with modern science. The Germans,\ntherefore, unable to recognise them as auxiliaries, soon ceased to\nregard them as equals, or as scientific divines at all. Without\nimpeaching their orthodoxy, they learned to look on them as men\nincapable of understanding and mastering the ideas of a literature so\nvery remote from their own, and to attach no more value to the\nunreasoned decrees of their organ than to the undefended _ipse dixit_ of\na theologian of secondary rank. This opinion sprang, not from national\nprejudice or from the self-appreciation of individuals comparing their\nown works with those of the Roman divines, but from a general view of\nthe relation of those divines, among whom there are several\ndistinguished Germans, to the literature of Germany. It was thus a\ncorporate feeling, which might be shared even by one who was conscious\nof his own inferiority, or who had written nothing at all. Such a man,\nweighing the opinion of the theologians of the Gesu and the Minerva, not\nin the scale of his own performance, but in that of the great\nachievements of his age, might well be reluctant to accept their verdict\nupon them without some aid of argument and explanation.\n\nOn the other hand, it appeared that a blow which struck the Catholic\nscholars of Germany would assure to the victorious congregation of Roman\ndivines an easy supremacy over the writers of all other countries. The\ncase of Dr. Frohschammer might be made to test what degree of control it\nwould be possible to exercise over his countrymen, the only body of\nwriters at whom alarm was felt, and who insisted, more than others, on\ntheir freedom. But the suspicion of such a possibility was likely only\nto confirm him in the idea that he was chosen to be the experimental\nbody on which an important principle was to be decided, and that it was\nhis duty, till his dogmatic error was proved, to resist a questionable\nencroachment of authority upon the rights of freedom. He therefore\nrefused to make the preliminary submission which was required of him,\nand allowed the decree to go forth against him in the usual way.\nHereupon it was intimated to him--though not by Rome--that he had\nincurred excommunication. This was the measure which raised the\nmomentous question of the liberties of Catholic science, and gave the\nimpulse to that new theory on the limits of authority with which his\nname has become associated.\n\nIn the civil affairs of mankind it is necessary to assume that the\nknowledge of the moral code and the traditions of law cannot perish in a\nChristian nation. Particular authorities may fall into error; decisions\nmay be appealed against; laws may be repealed, but the political\nconscience of the whole people cannot be irrecoverably lost. The Church\npossesses the same privilege, but in a much higher degree, for she\nexists expressly for the purpose of preserving a definite body of\ntruths, the knowledge of which she can never lose. Whatever authority,\ntherefore, expresses that knowledge of which she is the keeper must be\nobeyed. But there is no institution from which this knowledge can be\nobtained with immediate certainty. A council is not _a priori_\noecumenical; the Holy See is not separately infallible. The one has to\nawait a sanction, the other has repeatedly erred. Every decree,\ntherefore, requires a preliminary examination.\n\nA writer who is censured may, in the first place, yield an external\nsubmission, either for the sake of discipline, or because his conviction\nis too weak to support him against the weight of authority. But if the\nquestion at issue is more important than the preservation of peace, and\nif his conviction is strong, he inquires whether the authority which\ncondemns him utters the voice of the Church. If he finds that it does,\nhe yields to it, or ceases to profess the faith of Catholics. If he\nfinds that it does not, but is only the voice of authority, he owes it\nto his conscience, and to the supreme claims of truth, to remain\nconstant to that which he believes, in spite of opposition. No authority\nhas power to impose error, and, if it resists the truth, the truth must\nbe upheld until it is admitted. Now the adversaries of Dr. Frohschammer\nhad fallen into the monstrous error of attributing to the congregation\nof the Index a share in the infallibility of the Church. He was placed\nin the position of a persecuted man, and the general sympathy was with\nhim. In his defence he proceeded to state his theory of the rights of\nscience, in order to vindicate the Church from the imputation of\nrestricting its freedom. Hitherto his works had been written in defence\nof a Christian philosophy against materialism and infidelity. Their\nobject had been thoroughly religious, and although he was not deeply\nread in ecclesiastical literature, and was often loose and incautious in\nthe use of theological terms, his writings had not been wanting in\ncatholicity of spirit; but after his condemnation by Rome he undertook\nto pull down the power which had dealt the blow, and to make himself\nsafe for the future. In this spirit of personal antagonism he commenced\na long series of writings in defence of freedom and in defiance of\nauthority.\n\nThe following abstract marks, not so much the outline of his system, as\nthe logical steps which carried him to the point where he passed beyond\nthe limit of Catholicism. Religion, he taught, supplies materials but no\ncriterion for philosophy; philosophy has nothing to rely on, in the last\nresort, but the unfailing veracity of our nature, which is not corrupt\nor weak, but normally healthy, and unable to deceive us.[355] There is\nnot greater division or uncertainty in matters of speculation than on\nquestions of faith.[356] If at any time error or doubt should arise,\nthe science possesses in itself the means of correcting or removing it,\nand no other remedy is efficacious but that which it applies to\nitself.[357] There can be no free philosophy if we must always remember\ndogma.[358] Philosophy includes in its sphere all the dogmas of\nrevelation, as well as those of natural religion. It examines by its own\nindependent light the substance of every Christian doctrine, and\ndetermines in each case whether it be divine truth.[359] The conclusions\nand judgments at which it thus arrives must be maintained even when they\ncontradict articles of faith.[360] As we accept the evidence of\nastronomy in opposition to the once settled opinion of divines, so we\nshould not shrink from the evidence of chemistry if it should be adverse\nto transubstantiation.[361] The Church, on the other hand, examines\nthese conclusions by her standard of faith, and decides whether they can\nbe taught in theology.[362] But she has no means of ascertaining the\nphilosophical truth of an opinion, and cannot convict the philosopher of\nerror. The two domains are as distinct as reason and faith; and we must\nnot identify what we know with what we believe, but must separate the\nphilosopher from his philosophy. The system may be utterly at variance\nwith the whole teaching of Christianity, and yet the philosopher, while\nhe holds it to be philosophically true and certain, may continue to\nbelieve all Catholic doctrine, and to perform all the spiritual duties\nof a layman or a priest. For discord cannot exist between the certain\nresults of scientific investigation and the real doctrines of the\nChurch. Both are true, and there is no conflict of truths. But while the\nteaching of science is distinct and definite, that of the Church is\nsubject to alteration. Theology is at no time absolutely complete, but\nalways liable to be modified, and cannot, therefore, be made a fixed\ntest of truth.[363] Consequently there is no reason against the union of\nthe Churches. For the liberty of private judgment, which is the formal\nprinciple of Protestantism, belongs to Catholics; and there is no actual\nCatholic dogma which may not lose all that is objectionable to\nProtestants by the transforming process of development.[364]\n\nThe errors of Dr. Frohschammer in these passages are not exclusively his\nown. He has only drawn certain conclusions from premisses which are very\ncommonly received. Nothing is more usual than to confound religious\ntruth with the voice of ecclesiastical authority. Dr. Frohschammer,\nhaving fallen into this vulgar mistake, argues that because the\nauthority is fallible the truth must be uncertain. Many Catholics\nattribute to theological opinions which have prevailed for centuries\nwithout reproach a sacredness nearly approaching that which belongs to\narticles of faith: Dr. Frohschammer extends to defined dogmas the\nliability to change which belongs to opinions that yet await a final and\nconclusive investigation. Thousands of zealous men are persuaded that a\nconflict may arise between defined doctrines of the Church and\nconclusions which are certain according to all the tests of science; Dr.\nFrohschammer adopts this view, and argues that none of the decisions of\nthe Church are final, and that consequently in such a case they must\ngive way. Lastly, uninstructed men commonly impute to historical and\nnatural science the uncertainty which is inseparable from pure\nspeculation: Dr. Frohschammer accepts the equality, but claims for\nmetaphysics the same certainty and independence which those sciences\npossess.\n\nHaving begun his course in company with many who have exactly opposite\nends in view, Dr. Frohschammer, in a recent tract on the union of the\nChurches, entirely separates himself from the Catholic Church in his\ntheory of development. He had received the impulse to his new system\nfrom the opposition of those whom he considered the advocates of an\nexcessive uniformity and the enemies of progress, and their\ncontradiction has driven him to a point where he entirely sacrifices\nunity to change. He now affirms that our Lord desired no unity or\nperfect conformity among His followers, except in morals and\ncharity;[365] that He gave no definite system of doctrine; and that the\nform which Christian faith may have assumed in a particular age has no\nvalidity for all future time, but is subject to continual\nmodification.[366] The definitions, he says, which the Church has made\nfrom time to time are not to be obstinately adhered to; and the\nadvancement of religious knowledge is obtained by genius, not by\nlearning, and is not regulated by traditions and fixed rules.[367] He\nmaintains that not only the form but the substance varies; that the\nbelief of one age may be not only extended but abandoned in another; and\nthat it is impossible to draw the line which separates immutable dogma\nfrom undecided opinions.[368]\n\nThe causes which drove Dr. Frohschammer into heresy would scarcely have\ndeserved great attention from the mere merit of the man, for he cannot\nbe acquitted of having, in the first instance, exhibited very\nsuperficial notions of theology. Their instructiveness consists in the\nconspicuous example they afford of the effect of certain errors which at\nthe present day are commonly held and rarely contradicted. When he found\nhimself censured unjustly, as he thought, by the Holy See, it should\nhave been enough for him to believe in his conscience that he was in\nagreement with the true faith of the Church. He would not then have\nproceeded to consider the whole Church infected with the liability to\nerr from which her rulers are not exempt, or to degrade the fundamental\ntruths of Christianity to the level of mere school opinions. Authority\nappeared in his eyes to stand for the whole Church; and therefore, in\nendeavouring to shield himself from its influence, he abandoned the\nfirst principles of the ecclesiastical system. Far from having aided the\ncause of freedom, his errors have provoked a reaction against it, which\nmust be looked upon with deep anxiety, and of which the first\nsignificant symptom remains to be described.\n\nOn the 21st of December 1863, the Pope addressed a Brief to the\nArchbishop of Munich, which was published on the 5th of March. This\ndocument explains that the Holy Father had originally been led to\nsuspect the recent Congress at Munich of a tendency similar to that of\nFrohschammer, and had consequently viewed it with great distrust; but\nthat these feelings were removed by the address which was adopted at the\nmeeting, and by the report of the Archbishop. And he expresses the\nconsolation he has derived from the principles which prevailed in the\nassembly, and applauds the design of those by whom it was convened. He\nasked for the opinion of the German prelates, in order to be able to\ndetermine whether, in the present circumstances of their Church, it is\nright that the Congress should be renewed.\n\nBesides the censure of the doctrines of Frohschammer, and the\napprobation given to the acts of the Munich Congress, the Brief contains\npassages of deeper and more general import, not directly touching the\naction of the German divines, but having an important bearing on the\nposition of this _Review_. The substance of these passages is as\nfollows: In the present condition of society the supreme authority in\nthe Church is more than ever necessary, and must not surrender in the\nsmallest degree the exclusive direction of ecclesiastical knowledge. An\nentire obedience to the decrees of the Holy See and the Roman\ncongregations cannot be inconsistent with the freedom and progress of\nscience. The disposition to find fault with the scholastic theology, and\nto dispute the conclusions and the method of its teachers, threatens the\nauthority of the Church, because the Church has not only allowed\ntheology to remain for centuries faithful to their system, but has\nurgently recommended it as the safest bulwark of the faith, and an\nefficient weapon against her enemies. Catholic writers are not bound\nonly by those decisions of the infallible Church which regard articles\nof faith. They must also submit to the theological decisions of the\nRoman congregations, and to the opinions which are commonly received in\nthe schools. And it is wrong, though not heretical, to reject those\ndecisions or opinions.\n\nIn a word, therefore, the Brief affirms that the common opinions and\nexplanations of Catholic divines ought not to yield to the progress of\nsecular science, and that the course of theological knowledge ought to\nbe controlled by the decrees of the Index.\n\nThere is no doubt that the letter of this document might be interpreted\nin a sense consistent with the habitual language of the _Home and\nForeign Review_. On the one hand, the censure is evidently aimed at that\nexaggerated claim of independence which would deny to the Pope and the\nEpiscopate any right of interfering in literature, and would transfer\nthe whole weight heretofore belonging to the traditions of the schools\nof theology to the incomplete, and therefore uncertain, conclusions of\nmodern science. On the other hand, the _Review_ has always maintained,\nin common with all Catholics, that if the one Church has an organ it is\nthrough that organ that she must speak; that her authority is not\nlimited to the precise sphere of her infallibility; and that opinions\nwhich she has long tolerated or approved, and has for centuries found\ncompatible with the secular as well as religious knowledge of the age,\ncannot be lightly supplanted by new hypotheses of scientific men, which\nhave not yet had time to prove their consistency with dogmatic truth.\nBut such a plausible accommodation, even if it were honest or dignified,\nwould only disguise and obscure those ideas which it has been the chief\nobject of the _Review_ to proclaim. It is, therefore, not only more\nrespectful to the Holy See, but more serviceable to the principles of\nthe _Review_ itself, and more in accordance with the spirit in which it\nhas been conducted, to interpret the words of the Pope as they were\nreally meant, than to elude their consequences by subtle distinctions,\nand to profess a formal adoption of maxims which no man who holds the\nprinciples of the _Review_ can accept in their intended signification.\n\nOne of these maxims is that theological and other opinions long held and\nallowed in the Church gather truth from time, and an authority in some\nsort binding from the implied sanction of the Holy See, so that they\ncannot be rejected without rashness; and that the decrees of the\ncongregation of the Index possess an authority quite independent of the\nacquirements of the men composing it. This is no new opinion; it is only\nexpressed on the present occasion with unusual solemnity and\ndistinctness. But one of the essential principles of this _Review_\nconsists in a clear recognition, first, of the infinite gulf which in\ntheology separates what is of faith from what is not of faith,--revealed\ndogmas from opinions unconnected with them by logical necessity, and\ntherefore incapable of anything higher than a natural certainty--and\nnext, of the practical difference which exists in ecclesiastical\ndiscipline between the acts of infallible authority and those which\npossess no higher sanction than that of canonical legality. That which\nis not decided with dogmatic infallibility is for the time susceptible\nonly of a scientific determination, which advances with the progress of\nscience, and becomes absolute only where science has attained its final\nresults. On the one hand, this scientific progress is beneficial, and\neven necessary, to the Church; on the other, it must inevitably be\nopposed by the guardians of traditional opinion, to whom, as such, no\nshare in it belongs, and who, by their own acts and those of their\npredecessors, are committed to views which it menaces or destroys. The\nsame principle which, in certain conjunctures, imposes the duty of\nsurrendering received opinions imposes in equal extent, and under like\nconditions, the duty of disregarding the fallible authorities that\nuphold them.\n\nIt is the design of the Holy See not, of course, to deny the distinction\nbetween dogma and opinion, upon which this duty is founded, but to\nreduce the practical recognition of it among Catholics to the smallest\npossible limits. A grave question therefore arises as to the position of\na _Review_ founded in great part for the purpose of exemplifying this\ndistinction.[369] In considering the solution of this question two\ncircumstances must be borne in mind: first, that the antagonism now so\nforcibly expressed has always been known and acknowledged; and secondly,\nthat no part of the Brief applies directly to the _Review_. The _Review_\nwas as distinctly opposed to the Roman sentiment before the Brief as\nsince, and it is still as free from censure as before. It was at no time\nin virtual sympathy with authority on the points in question, and it is\nnot now in formal conflict with authority.\n\nBut the definiteness with which the Holy See has pronounced its will,\nand the fact that it has taken the initiative, seem positively to invite\nadhesion, and to convey a special warning to all who have expressed\nopinions contrary to the maxims of the Brief. A periodical which not\nonly has done so, but exists in a measure for the purpose of doing so,\ncannot with propriety refuse to survey the new position in which it is\nplaced by this important act. For the conduct of a _Review_ involves\nmore delicate relations with the government of the Church than the\nauthorship of an isolated book. When opinions which an author defends\nare rejected at Rome, he either makes his submission, or, if his mind\nremains unaltered, silently leaves his book to take its chance, and to\ninfluence men according to its merits. But such passivity, however right\nand seemly in the author of a book, is inapplicable to the case of a\n_Review_. The periodical iteration of rejected propositions would amount\nto insult and defiance, and would probably provoke more definite\nmeasures; and thus the result would be to commit authority yet more\nirrevocably to an opinion which otherwise might take no deep root, and\nmight yield ultimately to the influence of time. For it is hard to\nsurrender a cause on behalf of which a struggle has been sustained, and\nspiritual evils have been inflicted. In an isolated book, the author\nneed discuss no more topics than he likes, and any want of agreement\nwith ecclesiastical authority may receive so little prominence as to\nexcite no attention. But a continuous _Review_, which adopted this kind\nof reserve, would give a negative prominence to the topics it\npersistently avoided, and by thus keeping before the world the position\nit occupied would hold out a perpetual invitation to its readers to\njudge between the Church and itself. Whatever it gained of approbation\nand assent would be so much lost to the authority and dignity of the\nHoly See. It could only hope to succeed by trading on the scandal it\ncaused.\n\nBut in reality its success could no longer advance the cause of truth.\nFor what is the Holy See in its relation to the masses of Catholics, and\nwhere does its strength lie? It is the organ, the mouth, the head of the\nChurch. Its strength consists in its agreement with the general\nconviction of the faithful. When it expresses the common knowledge and\nsense of the age, or of a large majority of Catholics, its position is\nimpregnable. The force it derives from this general support makes direct\nopposition hopeless, and therefore disedifying, tending only to division\nand promoting reaction rather than reform. The influence by which it is\nto be moved must be directed first on that which gives its strength, and\nmust pervade the members in order that it may reach the head. While the\ngeneral sentiment of Catholics is unaltered, the course of the Holy See\nremains unaltered too. As soon as that sentiment is modified, Rome\nsympathises with the change. The ecclesiastical government, based upon\nthe public opinion of the Church, and acting through it, cannot separate\nitself from the mass of the faithful, and keep pace with the progress of\nthe instructed minority. It follows slowly and warily, and sometimes\nbegins by resisting and denouncing what in the end it thoroughly adopts.\nHence a direct controversy with Rome holds out the prospect of great\nevils, and at best a barren and unprofitable victory. The victory that\nis fruitful springs from that gradual change in the knowledge, the\nideas, and the convictions of the Catholic body, which, in due time,\novercomes the natural reluctance to forsake a beaten path, and by\ninsensible degrees constrains the mouthpiece of tradition to conform\nitself to the new atmosphere with which it is surrounded. The slow,\nsilent, indirect action of public opinion bears the Holy See along,\nwithout any demoralising conflict or dishonourable capitulation. This\naction belongs essentially to the graver scientific literature to\ndirect: and the inquiry what form that literature should assume at any\ngiven moment involves no question which affects its substance, though it\nmay often involve questions of moral fitness sufficiently decisive for a\nparticular occasion.\n\nIt was never pretended that the _Home and Foreign Review_ represented\nthe opinions of the majority of Catholics. The Holy See has had their\nsupport in maintaining a view of the obligations of Catholic literature\nvery different from the one which has been upheld in these pages; nor\ncould it explicitly abandon that view without taking up a new position\nin the Church. All that could be hoped for on the other side was silence\nand forbearance, and for a time they have been conceded. But this is the\ncase no longer. The toleration has now been pointedly withdrawn; and the\nadversaries of the Roman theory have been challenged with the summons to\nsubmit.\n\nIf the opinions for which submission is claimed were new, or if the\nopposition now signalised were one of which there had hitherto been any\ndoubt, a question might have arisen as to the limits of the authority of\nthe Holy See over the conscience, and the necessity or possibility of\naccepting the view which it propounds. But no problem of this kind has\nin fact presented itself for consideration. The differences which are\nnow proclaimed have all along been acknowledged to exist; and the\nconductors of this _Review_ are unable to yield their assent to the\nopinions put forward in the Brief.\n\nIn these circumstances there are two courses which it is impossible to\ntake. It would be wrong to abandon principles which have been well\nconsidered and are sincerely held, and it would also be wrong to assail\nthe authority which contradicts them. The principles have not ceased to\nbe true, nor the authority to be legitimate, because the two are in\ncontradiction. To submit the intellect and conscience without examining\nthe reasonableness and justice of this decree, or to reject the\nauthority on the ground of its having been abused, would equally be a\nsin, on one side against morals, on the other against faith. The\nconscience cannot be relieved by casting on the administrators of\necclesiastical discipline the whole responsibility of preserving\nreligious truth; nor can it be emancipated by a virtual apostasy. For\nthe Church is neither a despotism in which the convictions of the\nfaithful possess no power of expressing themselves and no means of\nexercising legitimate control, nor is it an organised anarchy where the\njudicial and administrative powers are destitute of that authority which\nis conceded to them in civil society--the authority which commands\nsubmission even where it cannot impose a conviction of the righteousness\nof its acts.\n\nNo Catholic can contemplate without alarm the evil that would be caused\nby a Catholic journal persistently labouring to thwart the published\nwill of the Holy See, and continuously defying its authority. The\nconductors of this _Review_ refuse to take upon themselves the\nresponsibility of such a position. And if it were accepted, the _Review_\nwould represent no section of Catholics. But the representative\ncharacter is as essential to it as the opinions it professes, or the\nliterary resources it commands. There is no lack of periodical\npublications representing science apart from religion, or religion apart\nfrom science. The distinctive feature of the _Home and Foreign Review_\nhas been that it has attempted to exhibit the two in union; and the\ninterest which has been attached to its views proceeded from the fact\nthat they were put forward as essentially Catholic in proportion to\ntheir scientific truth, and as expressing more faithfully than even the\nvoice of authority the genuine spirit of the Church in relation to\nintellect. Its object has been to elucidate the harmony which exists\nbetween religion and the established conclusions of secular knowledge,\nand to exhibit the real amity and sympathy between the methods of\nscience and the methods employed by the Church. That amity and sympathy\nthe enemies of the Church refuse to admit, and her friends have not\nlearned to understand. Long disowned by a large part of our Episcopate,\nthey are now rejected by the Holy See; and the issue is vital to a\n_Review_ which, in ceasing to uphold them, would surrender the whole\nreason of its existence.\n\nWarned, therefore, by the language of the Brief, I will not provoke\necclesiastical authority to a more explicit repudiation of doctrines\nwhich are necessary to secure its influence upon the advance of modern\nscience. I will not challenge a conflict which would only deceive the\nworld into a belief that religion cannot be harmonised with all that is\nright and true in the progress of the present age. But I will sacrifice\nthe existence of the _Review_ to the defence of its principles, in order\nthat I may combine the obedience which is due to legitimate\necclesiastical authority, with an equally conscientious maintenance of\nthe rightful and necessary liberty of thought. A conjuncture like the\npresent does not perplex the conscience of a Catholic; for his\nobligation to refrain from wounding the peace of the Church is neither\nmore nor less real than that of professing nothing beside or against his\nconvictions. If these duties have not been always understood, at least\nthe _Home and Foreign Review_ will not betray them; and the cause it has\nimperfectly expounded can be more efficiently served in future by means\nwhich will neither weaken the position of authority nor depend for their\ninfluence on its approval.\n\nIf, as I have heard, but now am scarcely anxious to believe, there are\nthose, both in the communion of the Church and out of it, who have found\ncomfort in the existence of this _Review_, and have watched its straight\nshort course with hopeful interest, trusting it as a sign that the\nknowledge deposited in their minds by study, and transformed by\nconscience into inviolable convictions, was not only tolerated among\nCatholics, but might be reasonably held to be of the very essence of\ntheir system; who were willing to accept its principles as a possible\nsolution of the difficulties they saw in Catholicism, and were even\nprepared to make its fate the touchstone of the real spirit of our\nhierarchy; or who deemed that while it lasted it promised them some\nimmunity from the overwhelming pressure of uniformity, some safeguard\nagainst resistance to the growth of knowledge and of freedom, and some\nprotection for themselves, since, however weak its influence as an\nauxiliary, it would, by its position, encounter the first shock, and so\ndivert from others the censures which they apprehended; who have found a\nwelcome encouragement in its confidence, a satisfaction in its sincerity\nwhen they shrank from revealing their own thoughts, or a salutary\nrestraint when its moderation failed to satisfy their ardour; whom, not\nbeing Catholics, it has induced to think less hardly of the Church, or,\nbeing Catholics, has bound more strongly to her;--to all these I would\nsay that the principles it has upheld will not die with it, but will\nfind their destined advocates, and triumph in their appointed time. From\nthe beginning of the Church it has been a law of her nature, that the\ntruths which eventually proved themselves the legitimate products of her\ndoctrine, have had to make their slow way upwards through a phalanx of\nhostile habits and traditions, and to be rescued, not only from open\nenemies, but also from friendly hands that were not worthy to defend\nthem. It is right that in every arduous enterprise some one who stakes\nno influence on the issue should make the first essay, whilst the true\nchampions, like the Triarii of the Roman legions, are behind, and wait,\nwithout wavering, until the crisis calls them forward.\n\nAnd already it seems to have arrived. All that is being done for\necclesiastical learning by the priesthood of the Continent bears\ntestimony to the truths which are now called in question; and every work\nof real science written by a Catholic adds to their force. The example\nof great writers aids their cause more powerfully than many theoretical\ndiscussions. Indeed, when the principles of the antagonism which\ndivides Catholics have been brought clearly out, the part of theory is\naccomplished, and most of the work of a _Review_ is done. It remains\nthat the principles which have been made intelligible should be\ntranslated into practice, and should pass from the arena of discussion\ninto the ethical code of literature. In that shape their efficacy will\nbe acknowledged, and they will cease to be the object of alarm. Those\nwho have been indignant at hearing that their methods are obsolete and\ntheir labours vain, will be taught by experience to recognise in the\nworks of another school services to religion more momentous than those\nwhich they themselves have aspired to perform; practice will compel the\nassent which is denied to theory; and men will learn to value in the\nfruit what the germ did not reveal to them. Therefore it is to the\nprospect of that development of Catholic learning which is too powerful\nto be arrested or repressed that I would direct the thoughts of those\nwho are tempted to yield either to a malignant joy or an unjust\ndespondency at the language of the Holy See. If the spirit of the _Home\nand Foreign Review_ really animates those whose sympathy it enjoyed,\nneither their principles, nor their confidence, nor their hopes will be\nshaken by its extinction. It was but a partial and temporary embodiment\nof an imperishable idea--the faint reflection of a light which still\nlives and burns in the hearts of the silent thinkers of the Church.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 340: _Home and Foreign Review_, April 1864.]\n\n[Footnote 341: Lamennais, _Correspondence_, Nouvelle edition (Paris:\nDidier).]\n\n[Footnote 342: April 12 and June 25, 1830.]\n\n[Footnote 343: Feb. 27, 1831.]\n\n[Footnote 344: March 30, 1831.]\n\n[Footnote 345: May 8 and June 15, 1829.]\n\n[Footnote 346: Feb. 8, 1830.]\n\n[Footnote 347: Aug. 15, 1831.]\n\n[Footnote 348: Feb. 10, 1833.]\n\n[Footnote 349: July 6, 1829.]\n\n[Footnote 350: Sept. 15, 1832.]\n\n[Footnote 351: Oct. 9, 1832.]\n\n[Footnote 352: Jan. 25, 1833.]\n\n[Footnote 353: Feb. 5, 1833.]\n\n[Footnote 354: March 25, 1833.]\n\n[Footnote 355: _Naturphilosophie_, p. 115; _Einleitung in die\nPhilosophie_, pp. 40, 54; _Freiheit der Wissenschaft_, pp. 4, 89;\n_Athenaeum_, i. 17.]\n\n[Footnote 356: _Athenaeum_, i. 92.]\n\n[Footnote 357: _Freiheit der Wissenschaft_, p. 32.]\n\n[Footnote 358: _Athenaeum_, i. 167.]\n\n[Footnote 359: _Einleitung_, pp. 305, 317, 397.]\n\n[Footnote 360: _Athenaeum_, i. 208.]\n\n[Footnote 361: _Ibid._ ii. 655.]\n\n[Footnote 362: _Ibid._ ii. 676.]\n\n[Footnote 363: _Ibid._ ii. 661.]\n\n[Footnote 364: _Wiedervereinigung der Katholiken und Protestanten_, pp.\n26, 35.]\n\n[Footnote 365: _Wiedervereinigung_, pp. 8, 10.]\n\n[Footnote 366: _Ibid._ p. 15.]\n\n[Footnote 367: _Ibid._ p. 21.]\n\n[Footnote 368: _Ibid._ pp. 25, 26.]\n\n[Footnote 369: The prospectus of the _Review_ contained these words: \"It\nwill abstain from direct theological discussion, as far as external\ncircumstances will allow; and in dealing with those mixed questions into\nwhich theology indirectly enters, its aim will be to combine devotion to\nthe Church with discrimination and candour in the treatment of her\nopponents: to reconcile freedom of inquiry with implicit faith, and to\ndiscountenance what is untenable and unreal, without forgetting the\ntenderness due to the weak, or the reverence rightly claimed for what is\nsacred. Submitting without reserve to infallible authority, it will\nencourage a habit of manly investigation on subjects of scientific\ninterest.\"]\n\n\n\n\nXIV\n\nTHE VATICAN COUNCIL[370]\n\n\nThe intention of Pius IX. to convene a General Council became known in\nthe autumn of 1864, shortly before the appearance of the Syllabus. They\nwere the two principal measures which were designed to restore the\nspiritual and temporal power of the Holy See. When the idea of the\nCouncil was first put forward it met with no favour. The French bishops\ndiscouraged it; and the French bishops holding the talisman of the\noccupying army, spoke with authority. Later on, when the position had\nbeen altered by the impulse which the Syllabus gave to the ultramontane\nopinions, they revived the scheme they had first opposed. Those who felt\ntheir influence injured by the change persuaded themselves that the\nCourt of Rome was more prudent than some of its partisans, and that the\nEpiscopate was less given to extremes than the priesthood and laity.\nThey conceived the hope that an assembly of bishops would curb the\nintemperance of a zeal which was largely directed against their own\norder, and would authentically sanction such an exposition of Catholic\nideas as would reconcile the animosity that feeds on things spoken in\nthe heat of controversy, and on the errors of incompetent apologists.\nThey had accepted the Syllabus; but they wished to obtain canonicity for\ntheir own interpretation of it. If those who had succeeded in assigning\nan acceptable meaning to its censures could appear in a body to plead\ntheir cause before the Pope, the pretensions which compromised the\nChurch might be permanently repressed.\n\nOnce, during the struggle for the temporal power, the question was\npertinently asked, how it was that men so perspicacious and so\nenlightened as those who were its most conspicuous champions, could\nbring themselves to justify a system of government which their own\nprinciples condemned. The explanation then given was, that they were\nmaking a sacrifice which would be compensated hereafter, that those who\nsuccoured the Pope in his utmost need were establishing a claim which\nwould make them irresistible in better times, when they should demand\ngreat acts of conciliation and reform. It appeared to these men that the\ntime had come to reap the harvest they had arduously sown.\n\nThe Council did not originate in the desire to exalt beyond measure the\ncause of Rome. It was proposed in the interest of moderation; and the\nBishop of Orleans was one of those who took the lead in promoting it.\nThe Cardinals were consulted, and pronounced against it The Pope\noverruled their resistance. Whatever embarrassments might be in store,\nand however difficult the enterprise, it was clear that it would evoke a\nforce capable of accomplishing infinite good for religion. It was an\ninstrument of unknown power that inspired little confidence, but\nawakened vague hopes of relief for the ills of society and the divisions\nof Christendom. The guardians of immovable traditions, and the leaders\nof progress in religious knowledge, were not to share in the work. The\nschism of the East was widened by the angry quarrel between Russia and\nthe Pope; and the letter to the Protestants, whose orders are not\nrecognised at Rome, could not be more than a ceremonious challenge.\nThere was no promise of sympathy in these invitations or in the answers\nthey provoked; but the belief spread to many schools of thought, and was\nheld by Dr. Pusey and by Dean Stanley, by Professor Hase and by M.\nGuizot, that the auspicious issue of the Council was an object of vital\ncare to all denominations of Christian men.\n\nThe Council of Trent impressed on the Church the stamp of an intolerant\nage, and perpetuated by its decrees the spirit of an austere\nimmorality. The ideas embodied in the Roman Inquisition became\ncharacteristic of a system which obeyed expediency by submitting to\nindefinite modification, but underwent no change of principle. Three\ncenturies have so changed the world that the maxims with which the\nChurch resisted the Reformation have become her weakness and her\nreproach, and that which arrested her decline now arrests her progress.\nTo break effectually with that tradition and eradicate its influence,\nnothing less is required than an authority equal to that by which it was\nimposed. The Vatican Council was the first sufficient occasion which\nCatholicism had enjoyed to reform, remodel, and adapt the work of Trent.\nThis idea was present among the motives which caused it to be summoned.\nIt was apparent that two systems which cannot be reconciled were about\nto contend at the Council; but the extent and force of the reforming\nspirit were unknown.\n\nSeventeen questions submitted by the Holy See to the bishops in 1867\nconcerned matters of discipline, the regulation of marriage and\neducation, the policy of encouraging new monastic orders, and the means\nof making the parochial clergy more dependent on the bishops. They gave\nno indication of the deeper motives of the time. In the midst of many\ntrivial proposals, the leading objects of reform grew more defined as\nthe time approached, and men became conscious of distinct purposes based\non a consistent notion of the Church. They received systematic\nexpression from a Bohemian priest, whose work, _The Reform of the Church\nin its Head and Members_, is founded on practical experience, not only\non literary theory, and is the most important manifesto of these ideas.\nThe author exhorts the Council to restrict centralisation, to reduce the\noffice of the Holy See to the ancient limits of its primacy, to restore\nto the Episcopate the prerogatives which have been confiscated by Rome,\nto abolish the temporal government, which is the prop of hierarchical\ndespotism, to revise the matrimonial discipline, to suppress many\nreligious orders and the solemn vows for all, to modify the absolute\nrule of celibacy for the clergy, to admit the use of the vernacular in\nthe Liturgy, to allow a larger share to the laity in the management of\necclesiastical affairs, to encourage the education of the clergy at\nuniversities, and to renounce the claims of mediaeval theocracy, which\nare fruitful of suspicion between Church and State.\n\nMany Catholics in many countries concurred in great part of this\nprogramme; but it was not the symbol of a connected party. Few agreed\nwith the author in all parts of his ideal church, or did not think that\nhe had omitted essential points. Among the inveterate abuses which the\nCouncil of Trent failed to extirpate was the very one which gave the\nfirst impulse to Lutheranism. The belief is still retained in the\nsuperficial Catholicism of Southern Europe that the Pope can release the\ndead from Purgatory; and money is obtained at Rome on the assurance that\nevery mass said at a particular altar opens heaven to the soul for which\nit is offered up. On the other hand, the Index of prohibited books is an\ninstitution of Tridentine origin, which has become so unwieldy and\nopprobrious that even men of strong Roman sympathies, like the bishops\nof Wuerzburg and St. Poelten, recommended its reform. In France it was\nthought that the Government would surrender the organic articles, if the\nrights of the bishops and the clergy were made secure under the canon\nlaw, if national and diocesan synods were introduced, and if a\nproportionate share was given to Catholic countries in the Sacred\nCollege and the Roman congregations. The aspiration in which all the\nadvocates of reform seemed to unite was that those customs should be\nchanged which are connected with arbitrary power in the Church. And all\nthe interests threatened by this movement combined in the endeavour to\nmaintain intact the papal prerogative. To proclaim the Pope infallible\nwas their compendious security against hostile States and Churches,\nagainst human liberty and authority, against disintegrating tolerance\nand rationalising science, against error and sin. It became the common\nrefuge of those who shunned what was called the liberal influence in\nCatholicism.\n\nPius IX. constantly asserted that the desire of obtaining the\nrecognition of papal infallibility was not originally his motive in\nconvoking the Council. He did not require that a privilege which was\npractically undisputed should be further defined. The bishops,\nespecially those of the minority, were never tired of saying that the\nCatholic world honoured and obeyed the Pope as it had never done before.\nVirtually he had exerted all the authority which the dogma could confer\non him. In his first important utterance, the Encyclical of November\n1846, he announced that he was infallible; and the claim raised no\ncommotion. Later on he applied a more decisive test, and gained a more\ncomplete success, when the bishops summoned to Rome, not as a Council\nbut as an audience, received from him an additional article of their\nfaith. But apart from the dogma of infallibility he had a strong desire\nto establish certain cherished opinions of his own on a basis firm\nenough to outlast his time. They were collected in the Syllabus, which\ncontained the essence of what he had written during many years, and was\nan abridgment of the lessons which his life had taught him. He was\nanxious that they should not be lost. They were part of a coherent\nsystem. The Syllabus was not rejected; but its edge was blunted and its\npoint broken by the zeal which was spent in explaining it away; and the\nPope feared that it would be contested if he repudiated the soothing\ninterpretations. In private he said that he wished to have no\ninterpreter but himself. While the Jesuit preachers proclaimed that the\nSyllabus bore the full sanction of infallibility, higher functionaries\nof the Court pointed out that it was an informal document, without\ndefinite official value. Probably the Pope would have been content that\nthese his favourite ideas should be rescued from evasion by being\nincorporated in the canons of the Council. Papal infallibility was\nimplied rather than included among them. Whilst the authority of his\nacts was not resisted, he was not eager to disparage his right by\nexposing the need of a more exact definition. The opinions which Pius\nIX. was anxiously promoting were not the mere fruit of his private\nmeditations; they belonged to the doctrines of a great party, which was\nbusily pursuing its own objects, and had not been always the party of\nthe Pope. In the days of his trouble he had employed an advocate; and\nthe advocate had absorbed the client. During his exile a Jesuit had\nasked his approbation for a Review, to be conducted by the best talents\nof the Order, and to be devoted to the papal cause; and he had warmly\nembraced the idea, less, it should seem, as a prince than as a divine.\nThere were his sovereign rights to maintain; but there was also a\ndoctrinaire interest, there were reminiscences of study as well as\npractical objects that recommended the project. In these personal views\nthe Pope was not quite consistent. He had made himself the idol of\nItalian patriots, and of the liberal French Catholics; he had set\nTheiner to vindicate the suppresser of the Jesuits; and Rosmini, the\nmost enlightened priest in Italy, had been his trusted friend. After his\nrestoration he submitted to other influences; and the writers of the\n_Civilta Cattolica_, which followed him to Rome and became his\nacknowledged organ, acquired power over his mind. These men were not\nidentified with their Order. Their General, Roothan, had disliked the\nplan of the Review, foreseeing that the Society would be held\nresponsible for writings which it did not approve, and would forfeit the\nflexibility in adapting itself to the moods of different countries,\nwhich is one of the secrets of its prosperity. The Pope arranged the\nmatter by taking the writers under his own protection, and giving to\nthem a sort of exemption and partial immunity under the rule of their\nOrder. They are set apart from other Jesuits; they are assisted and\nsupplied from the literary resources of the Order, and are animated more\nthan any of its other writers by its genuine and characteristic spirit;\nbut they act on their own judgment under the guidance of the Pope, and\nare a bodyguard, told off from the army, for the personal protection of\nthe Sovereign. It is their easy function to fuse into one system the\ninterests and ideas of the Pope and those of their Society. The result\nhas been, not to weaken by compromise and accommodation, but to\nintensify both. The prudence and sagacity which are sustained in the\ngovernment of the Jesuits by their complicated checks on power, and\ntheir consideration for the interests of the Order under many various\nconditions, do not always restrain men who are partially emancipated\nfrom its rigorous discipline and subject to a more capricious rule. They\nwere chosen in their capacity as Jesuits, for the sake of the peculiar\nspirit which their system develops. The Pope appointed them on account\nof that devotion to himself which is a quality of the Order, and\nrelieved them from some of the restraints which it imposes. He wished\nfor something more papal than other Jesuits; and he himself became more\nsubject to the Jesuits than other pontiffs. He made them a channel of\nhis influence, and became an instrument of their own.\n\nThe Jesuits had continued to gain ground in Rome ever since the Pope's\nreturn. They had suffered more than others in the revolution that\ndethroned him; and they had their reward in the restoration. They had\nlong been held in check by the Dominicans; but the theology of the\nDominicans had been discountenanced and their spirit broken in 1854,\nwhen a doctrine which they had contested for centuries was proclaimed a\ndogma of faith. In the strife for the Pope's temporal dominion the\nJesuits were most zealous; and they were busy in the preparation and in\nthe defence of the Syllabus. They were connected with every measure for\nwhich the Pope most cared; and their divines became the oracles of the\nRoman congregations. The papal infallibility had been always their\nfavourite doctrine. Its adoption by the Council promised to give to\ntheir theology official warrant, and to their Order the supremacy in the\nChurch. They were now in power; and they snatched their opportunity when\nthe Council was convoked.\n\nEfforts to establish this doctrine had been going on for years. The\ndogmatic decree of 1854 involved it so distinctly that its formal\nrecognition seemed to be only a question of time and zeal. People even\nsaid that it was the real object of that decree to create a precedent\nwhich should make it impossible afterwards to deny papal infallibility.\nThe Catechisms were altered, or new ones were substituted, in which it\nwas taught. After 1852 the doctrine began to show itself in the Acts of\nprovincial synods, and it was afterwards supposed that the bishops of\nthose provinces were committed to it. One of these synods was held at\nCologne; and three surviving members were in the Council at Rome, of\nwhom two were in the minority, and the third had continued in his\nwritings to oppose the doctrine of infallibility, after it had found its\nway into the Cologne decree. The suspicion that the Acts had been\ntampered with is suggested by what passed at the synod of Baltimore in\n1866. The Archbishop of St. Louis signed the Acts of that synod under\nprotest, and after obtaining a pledge that his protest would be inserted\nby the apostolic delegate. The pledge was not kept. \"I complain,\" writes\nthe archbishop, \"that the promise which had been given was broken. The\nActs ought to have been published in their integrity, or not at\nall.\"[371] This process was carried on so boldly that men understood\nwhat was to come. Protestants foretold that the Catholics would not rest\nuntil the Pope was formally declared infallible; and a prelate returning\nfrom the meeting of bishops at Rome in 1862 was startled at being asked\nby a clear-sighted friend whether infallibility had not been brought\nforward.\n\nIt was produced not then, but at the next great meeting, in 1867. The\nCouncil had been announced; and the bishops wished to present an address\nto the Pope. Haynald, Archbishop of Colocza, held the pen, assisted by\nFranchi, one of the clever Roman prelates and by some bishops, among\nwhom were the Archbishop of Westminster and the Bishop of Orleans. An\nattempt was made to get the papal infallibility acknowledged in the\naddress. Several bishops declared that they could not show themselves in\ntheir dioceses if they came back without having done anything for that\ndoctrine. They were resisted in a way which made them complain that its\nvery name irritated the French. Haynald refused their demand, but agreed\nto insert the well-known words of the Council of Florence; and the\nbishops did not go away empty-handed.\n\nA few days before this attempt was made, the _Civilta Cattolica_ had\nbegun to agitate, by proposing that Catholics should bind themselves to\ndie, if need be, for the truth of the doctrine; and the article was\nprinted on a separate sheet, bearing the papal _imprimatur_, and\ndistributed widely. The check administered by Haynald and his colleagues\nbrought about a lull in the movement; but the French bishops had taken\nalarm, and Maret, the most learned of them, set about the preparation of\nhis book.\n\nDuring the winter of 1868-69 several commissions were created in Rome to\nmake ready the materials for the Council. The dogmatic commission\nincluded the Jesuits Perrone, Schrader, and Franzelin. The question of\ninfallibility was proposed to it by Cardoni, Archbishop of Edessa, in a\ndissertation which, having been revised, was afterwards published, and\naccepted by the leading Roman divines as an adequate exposition of their\ncase. The dogma was approved unanimously, with the exception of one\nvote, Alzog of Freiberg being the only dissentient. When the other\nGerman divines who were in Rome learned the scheme that was on foot in\nthe Dogmatic Commission, they resolved to protest, but were prevented by\nsome of their colleagues. They gave the alarm in Germany. The intention\nto proclaim infallibility at the Council was no longer a secret. The\nfirst bishop who made the wish public was Fessler of St. Poelten. His\nlanguage was guarded, and he only prepared his readers for a probable\ncontingency; but he was soon followed by the Bishop of Nimes, who\nthought the discussion of the dogma superfluous, and foreshadowed a vote\nby acclamation. The _Civilta_ on the 6th of February gave utterance to\nthe hope that the Council would not hesitate to proclaim the dogma and\nconfirm the Syllabus in less than a month. Five days later the Pope\nwrote to some Venetians who had taken a vow to uphold his infallibility,\nencouraging their noble resolution to defend his supreme authority and\nall his rights. Until the month of May Cardinal Antonelli's confidential\nlanguage to diplomatists was that the dogma was to be proclaimed, and\nthat it would encounter no difficulty.\n\nCardinal Reisach was to have been the President of the Council. As\nArchbishop of Munich he had allowed himself and his diocese to be\ngoverned by the ablest of all the ultramontane divines. During his long\nresidence in Rome he rose to high estimation, because he was reputed to\npossess the secret, and to have discovered the vanity, of German\nscience. He had amused himself with Christian antiquities; and his\nfriendship for the great explorer De' Rossi brought him for a time under\nsuspicion of liberality. But later he became unrelenting in his ardour\nfor the objects of the _Civilta_, and regained the confidence of the\nPope. The German bishops complained that he betrayed their interests,\nand that their church had suffered mischief from his paramount\ninfluence. But in Rome his easy temper and affable manners made him\nfriends; and the Court knew that there was no cardinal on whom it was so\nsafe to rely.\n\nFessler, the first bishop who gave the signal of the intended\ndefinition, was appointed Secretary. He was esteemed a learned man in\nAustria, and he was wisely chosen to dispel the suspicion that the\nconduct of the Council was to be jealously retained in Roman hands, and\nto prove that there are qualities by which the confidence of the Court\ncould be won by men of a less favoured nation. Besides the President and\nSecretary, the most conspicuous of the Pope's theological advisers was\na German. At the time when Passaglia's reputation was great in Rome,\nhis companion Clement Schrader shared the fame of his solid erudition.\nWhen Passaglia fell into disgrace, his friend smote him with reproaches\nand intimated the belief that he would follow the footsteps of Luther\nand debauch a nun. Schrader is the most candid and consistent asserter\nof the papal claims. He does not shrink from the consequences of the\npersecuting theory; and he has given the most authentic and unvarnished\nexposition of the Syllabus. He was the first who spoke out openly what\nothers were variously attempting to compromise or to conceal. While the\nParis Jesuits got into trouble for extenuating the Roman doctrine, and\nhad to be kept up to the mark by an abbe who reminded them that the\nPope, as a physical person, and without co-operation of the Episcopate,\nis infallible, Schrader proclaimed that his will is supreme even against\nthe joint and several opinions of the bishops.[372]\n\nWhen the proceedings of the dogmatic commission, the acts of the Pope,\nand the language of French and Austrian bishops, and of the press\nserving the interests of Rome, announced that the proclamation of\ninfallibility had ceased to be merely the aspiration of a party and was\nthe object of a design deliberately set on foot by those to whom the\npreparation and management of the Council pertained, men became aware\nthat an extraordinary crisis was impending, and that they needed to make\nthemselves familiar with an unforeseen problem. The sense of its gravity\nmade slow progress. The persuasion was strong among divines that the\nepiscopate would not surrender to a party which was odious to many of\nthem; and politicians were reluctant to believe that schemes were\nripening such as Fessler described, schemes intended to alter the\nrelations between Church and State. When the entire plan was made public\nby the _alleging Zeitung_ in March 1869, many refused to be convinced.\n\nIt happened that a statesman was in office who had occasion to know that\nthe information was accurate. The Prime Minister of Bavaria, Prince\nHohenlohe, was the brother of a cardinal; the University of Munich was\nrepresented on the Roman commissions by an illustrious scholar; and the\nnews of the thing that was preparing came through trustworthy channels.\nOn the 9th of April Prince Hohenlohe sent out a diplomatic circular on\nthe subject of the Council. He pointed out that it was not called into\nexistence by any purely theological emergency, and that the one dogma\nwhich was to be brought before it involved all those claims which cause\ncollisions between Church and State, and threaten the liberty and the\nsecurity of governments. Of the five Roman Commissions, one was\nappointed for the express purpose of dealing with the mixed topics\ncommon to religion and to politics. Besides infallibility and politics,\nthe Council was to be occupied with the Syllabus, which is in part\ndirected against maxims of State. The avowed purpose of the Council\nbeing so largely political, the governments could not remain indifferent\nto its action; lest they should be driven afterwards to adopt measures\nwhich would be hostile, it would be better at once to seek an\nunderstanding by friendly means and to obtain assurance that all\nirritating deliberations should be avoided, and no business touching the\nState transacted except in presence of its representatives. He proposed\nthat the governments should hold a conference to arrange a plan for the\nprotection of their common interest.\n\nImportant measures proposed by small States are subject to suspicion of\nbeing prompted by a greater Power. Prince Hohenlohe, as a friend of the\nPrussian alliance, was supposed to be acting in this matter in concert\nwith Berlin. This good understanding was suspected at Vienna; for the\nAustrian Chancellor was more conspicuous as an enemy of Prussia than\nHohenlohe as a friend. Count Beust traced the influence of Count\nBismarck in the Bavarian circular. He replied, on behalf of the Catholic\nempire of Austria, that there were no grounds to impute political\nobjects to the Council, and that repression and not prevention was the\nonly policy compatible with free institutions. After the refusal of\nAustria, the idea of a conference was dismissed by the other Powers; and\nthe first of the storm clouds that darkened the horizon of infallibility\npassed without breaking.\n\nAlthough united action was abandoned, the idea of sending ambassadors to\nthe Council still offered the most inoffensive and amicable means of\npreventing the danger of subsequent conflict. Its policy or impolicy was\na question to be decided by France. Several bishops, and Cardinal\nBonnechose among the rest, urged the Government to resume its ancient\nprivilege, and send a representative. But two powerful parties, united\nin nothing else, agreed in demanding absolute neutrality. The democracy\nwished that no impediment should be put in the way of an enterprise\nwhich promised to sever the connection of the State with the Church. M.\nOllivier set forth this opinion in July 1868, in a speech which was to\nserve him in his candidature for office; and in the autumn of 1869 it\nwas certain that he would soon be in power. The ministers could not\ninsist on being admitted to the Council, where they were not invited,\nwithout making a violent demonstration in a direction they knew would\nnot be followed. The ultramontanes were even more eager than their\nenemies to exclude an influence that might embarrass their policy. The\nArchbishop of Paris, by giving the same advice, settled the question. He\nprobably reckoned on his own power of mediating between France and Rome.\nThe French Court long imagined that the dogma would be set aside, and\nthat the mass of the French bishops opposed it. At last they perceived\nthat they were mistaken, and the Emperor said to Cardinal Bonnechose,\n\"You are going to give your signature to decrees already made.\" He\nascertained the names of the bishops who would resist; and it was known\nthat he was anxious for their success. But he was resolved that it\nshould be gained by them, and not by the pressure of his diplomacy at\nthe cost of displeasing the Pope. The Minister of Foreign Affairs and\nhis chief secretary were counted by the Court of Rome among its friends;\nand the ordinary ambassador started for his post with instructions to\nconciliate, and to run no risk of a quarrel. He arrived at Rome\nbelieving that there would be a speculative conflict between the\nextremes of Roman and German theology, which would admit of being\nreconciled by the safer and more sober wisdom of the French bishops,\nbacked by an impartial embassy. His credulity was an encumbrance to the\ncause which it was his mission and his wish to serve.\n\nIn Germany the plan of penetrating the Council with lay influence took a\nstrange form. It was proposed that the German Catholics should be\nrepresented by King John of Saxony. As a Catholic and a scholar, who had\nshown, in his Commentary on Dante, that he had read St. Thomas, and as a\nprince personally esteemed by the Pope, it was conceived that his\npresence would be a salutary restraint. It was an impracticable idea;\nbut letters which reached Rome during the winter raised an impression\nthat the King regretted that he could not be there. The opinion of\nGermany would still have some weight if the North and South, which\nincluded more than thirteen millions of Catholics, worked together. It\nwas the policy of Hohenlohe to use this united force, and the\nultramontanes learned to regard him as a very formidable antagonist.\nWhen their first great triumph, in the election of the Commission on\nDoctrine, was accomplished, the commentary of a Roman prelate was, \"Che\ncolpo per il Principe Hohenlohe!\" The Bavarian envoy in Rome did not\nshare the views of his chief, and he was recalled in November. His\nsuccessor had capacity to carry out the known policy of the prince; but\nearly in the winter the ultramontanes drove Hohenlohe from office, and\ntheir victory, though it was exercised with moderation, and was not\nfollowed by a total change of policy, neutralised the influence of\nBavaria in the Council.\n\nThe fall of Hohenlohe and the abstention of France hampered the Federal\nGovernment of Northern Germany. For its Catholic subjects, and\nultimately in view of the rivalry with France, to retain the friendship\nof the papacy is a fixed maxim at Berlin. Count Bismarck laid down the\nrule that Prussia should display no definite purpose in a cause which\nwas not her own, but should studiously keep abreast of the North German\nbishops. Those bishops neither invoked, nor by their conduct invited,\nthe co-operation of the State; and its influence would have been\nbanished from the Council but for the minister who represented it in\nRome. The vicissitudes of a General Council are so far removed from the\nnormal experience of statesmen that they could not well be studied or\nacted upon from a distance. A government that strictly controlled and\ndictated the conduct of its envoy was sure to go wrong, and to frustrate\naction by theory. A government that trusted the advice of its minister\npresent on the spot enjoyed a great advantage. Baron Arnim was\nfavourably situated. A Catholic belonging to any but the ultramontane\nschool would have been less willingly listened to in Rome than a\nProtestant who was a conservative in politics, and whose regard for the\ninterests of religion was so undamaged by the sectarian taint that he\nwas known to be sincere in the wish that Catholics should have cause to\nrejoice in the prosperity of their Church. The apathy of Austria and the\nvacillation of France contributed to his influence, for he enjoyed the\nconfidence of bishops from both countries; and he was able to guide his\nown government in its course towards the Council.\n\nThe English Government was content to learn more and to speak less than\nthe other Powers at Rome. The usual distrust of the Roman Court towards\na Liberal ministry in England was increased at the moment by the measure\nwhich the Catholics had desired and applauded. It seemed improbable to\nmen more solicitous for acquired rights than for general political\nprinciple, that Protestant statesmen who disestablished their own Church\ncould feel a very sincere interest in the welfare of another. Ministers\nso Utopian as to give up solid goods for an imaginary righteousness\nseemed, as practical advisers, open to grave suspicion. Mr. Gladstone\nwas feared as the apostle of those doctrines to which Rome owes many\nlosses. Public opinion in England was not prepared to look on papal\ninfallibility as a matter of national concern, more than other dogmas\nwhich make enemies to Catholicism. Even if the Government could have\nadmitted the Prussian maxim of keeping in line with the bishops, it\nwould have accomplished nothing. The English bishops were divided; but\nthe Irish bishops, who are the natural foes of the Fenian plot, were by\nan immense majority on the ultramontane side. There was almost an\nostentation of care on the part of the Government to avoid the\nappearance of wishing to influence the bishops or the Court of Rome.\nWhen at length England publicly concurred in the remonstrances of\nFrance, events had happened which showed that the Council was raising up\ndangers for both Catholic and liberal interests. It was a result so easy\nto foresee, that the Government had made it clear from the beginning\nthat its extreme reserve was not due to indifference.\n\nThe lesser Catholic Powers were almost unrepresented in Rome. The\ngovernment of the Regent of Spain possessed no moral authority over\nbishops appointed by the Queen; and the revolution had proved so hostile\nto the clergy that they were forced to depend on the Pope. Diplomatic\nrelations being interrupted, there was nothing to restrain them from\nseeking favour by unqualified obedience.\n\nPortugal had appointed the Count de Lavradio ambassador to the Council;\nbut when he found that he was alone he retained only the character of\nenvoy to the Holy See. He had weight with the small group of Portuguese\nbishops; but he died before he could be of use, and they drifted into\nsubmission.\n\nBelgium was governed by M. Frere Orban, one of the most anxious and\nlaborious enemies of the hierarchy, who had no inducement to interfere\nwith an event which justified his enmity, and was, moreover, the\nunanimous wish of the Belgian Episcopate. When Protestant and Catholic\nPowers joined in exhorting Rome to moderation, Belgium was left out.\nRussia was the only Power that treated the Church with actual hostility\nduring the Council, and calculated the advantage to be derived from\ndecrees which would intensify the schism.\n\nItaly was more deeply interested in the events at Rome than any other\nnation. The hostility of the clergy was felt both in the political and\nfinancial difficulties of the kingdom; and the prospect of conciliation\nwould suffer equally from decrees confirming the Roman claims, or from\nan invidious interposition of the State. Public opinion watched the\npreparations for the Council with frivolous disdain; but the course to\nbe taken was carefully considered by the Menabrea Cabinet. The laws\nstill subsisted which enabled the State to interfere in religious\naffairs; and the government was legally entitled to prohibit the\nattendance of the bishops at the Council, or to recall them from it. The\nconfiscated church property was retained by the State, and the claims of\nthe episcopate were not yet settled. More than one hundred votes on\nwhich Rome counted belonged to Italian subjects. The means of applying\nadministrative pressure were therefore great, though diplomatic action\nwas impossible. The Piedmontese wished that the resources of their\necclesiastical jurisprudence should be set in motion. But Minghetti, who\nhad lately joined the Ministry, warmly advocated the opinion that the\nsupreme principle of the liberty of the Church ought to override the\nremains of the older legislation, in a State consistently free; and,\nwith the disposition of the Italians to confound Catholicism with the\nhierarchy, the policy of abstention was a triumph of liberality. The\nidea of Prince Hohenlohe, that religion ought to be maintained in its\nintegrity and not only in its independence, that society is interested\nin protecting the Church even against herself, and that the enemies of\nher liberty are ecclesiastical as well as political, could find no\nfavour in Italy. During the session of 1869, Menabrea gave no pledge to\nParliament as to the Council; and the bishops who inquired whether they\nwould be allowed to attend it were left unanswered until October.\nMenabrea then explained in a circular that the right of the bishops to\ngo to the Council proceeded from the liberty of conscience, and was not\nconceded under the old privileges of the crown, or as a favour that\ncould imply responsibility for what was to be done. If the Church was\nmolested in her freedom, excuse would be given for resisting the\nincorporation of Rome. If the Council came to decisions injurious to the\nsafety of States, it would be attributed to the unnatural conditions\ncreated by the French occupation, and might be left to the enlightened\njudgment of Catholics.\n\nIt was proposed that the fund realised by the sale of the real property\nof the religious corporations should be administered for religious\npurposes by local boards of trustees representing the Catholic\npopulation, and that the State should abdicate in their favour its\necclesiastical patronage, and proceed to discharge the unsettled claims\nof the clergy. So great a change in the plans by which Sella and\nRattazzi had impoverished the Church in 1866 and 1867 would, if frankly\ncarried into execution, have encouraged an independent spirit among the\nItalian bishops; and the reports of the prefects represented about\nthirty of them as being favourable to conciliation. But the Ministry\nfell in November, and was succeeded by an administration whose leading\nmembers, Lanza and Sella, were enemies of religion. The Court of Rome\nwas relieved from a serious peril.\n\nThe only European country whose influence was felt in the attitude of\nits bishops was one whose government sent out no diplomatists. While the\nAustrian Chancellor regarded the issue of the Council with a profane and\nsupercilious eye, and so much indifference prevailed at Vienna that it\nwas said that the ambassador at Rome did not read the decrees, and that\nCount Beust did not read his despatches, the Catholic statesmen in\nHungary were intent on effecting a revolution in the Church. The system\nwhich was about to culminate in the proclamation of infallibility, and\nwhich tended to absorb all power from the circumference into the centre,\nand to substitute authority for autonomy, had begun at the lower\nextremities of the hierarchical scale. The laity, which once had its\nshare in the administration of Church property and in the deliberations\nof the clergy, had been gradually compelled to give up its rights to the\npriesthood, the priests to the bishops, and the bishops to the Pope.\nHungary undertook to redress the process, and to correct centralised\nabsolutism by self-government. In a memorandum drawn up in April 1848,\nthe bishops imputed the decay of religion to the exclusion of the people\nfrom the management of all Church affairs, and proposed that whatever is\nnot purely spiritual should be conducted by mixed boards, including lay\nrepresentatives elected by the congregations. The war of the revolution\nand the reaction checked this design; and the Concordat threw things\nmore than ever into clerical hands. The triumph of the liberal party\nafter the peace of Prague revived the movements; and Eoetvoes called on\nthe bishops to devise means of giving to the laity a share and an\ninterest in religious concerns. The bishops agreed unanimously to the\nproposal of Deak, that the laity should have the majority in the boards\nof administration; and the new constitution of the Hungarian Church was\nadopted by the Catholic Congress on the 17th of October 1869, and\napproved by the King on the 25th. The ruling idea of this great measure\nwas to make the laity supreme in all that is not liturgy and dogma, in\npatronage, property, and education; to break down clerical exclusiveness\nand government control; to deliver the people from the usurpations of\nthe hierarchy, and the Church from the usurpations of the State. It was\nan attempt to reform the Church by constitutional principles, and to\ncrush ultramontanism by crushing Gallicanism. The Government, which had\noriginated the scheme, was ready to surrender its privileges to the\nnewly-constituted authorities; and the bishops acted in harmony with the\nministers and with public opinion. Whilst this good understanding\nlasted, and while the bishops were engaged in applying the impartial\nprinciples of self-government at home, there was a strong security that\nthey would not accept decrees that would undo their work. Infallibility\nwould not only condemn their system, but destroy their position. As the\nwinter advanced the influence of these things became apparent. The\nascendency which the Hungarian bishops acquired from the beginning was\ndue to other causes.\n\nThe political auspices under which the Council opened were very\nfavourable to the papal cause. The promoters of infallibility were able\nto coin resources of the enmity which was shown to the Church. The\ndanger which came to them from within was averted. The policy of\nHohenlohe, which was afterwards revived by Daru, had been, for a time,\ncompletely abandoned by Europe. The battle between the papal and the\nepiscopal principle could come off undisturbed, in closed lists.\nPolitical opposition there was none; but the Council had to be governed\nunder the glare of inevitable publicity, with a free press in Europe,\nand hostile views prevalent in Catholic theology. The causes which made\nreligious science utterly powerless in the strife, and kept it from\ngrappling with the forces arrayed against it, are of deeper import than\nthe issue of the contest itself.\n\nWhile the voice of the bishops grew louder in praise of the Roman\ndesigns, the Bavarian Government consulted the universities, and\nelicited from the majority of the Munich faculty an opinion that the\ndogma of infallibility would be attended with serious danger to society.\nThe author of the Bohemian pamphlet affirmed that it had not the\nconditions which would enable it ever to become the object of a valid\ndefinition. Janus compared the primacy, as it was known to the Fathers\nof the Church, with the ultramontane ideal, and traced the process of\ntransformation through a long series of forgeries. Maret published his\nbook some weeks after Janus and the Reform. It had been revised by\nseveral French bishops and divines, and was to serve as a vindication of\nthe Sorbonne and the Gallicans, and as the manifesto of men who were to\nbe present at the Council. It had not the merit of novelty or the fault\nof innovation, but renewed with as little offence as possible the\nlanguage of the old French school.[373] While Janus treated\ninfallibility as the critical symptom of an ancient disease, Maret\nrestricted his argument to what was directly involved in the defence of\nthe Gallican position. Janus held that the doctrine was so firmly rooted\nand so widely supported in the existing constitution of the Church, that\nmuch must be modified before a genuine OEcumenical Council could be\ncelebrated. Maret clung to the belief that the real voice of the Church\nwould make itself heard at the Vatican. In direct contradiction with\nJanus, he kept before him the one practical object, to gain assent by\nmaking his views acceptable even to the unlearned.\n\nAt the last moment a tract appeared which has been universally\nattributed to Doellinger, which examined the evidences relied on by the\ninfallibilists, and stated briefly the case against them. It pointed to\nthe inference that their theory is not merely founded on an illogical\nand uncritical habit, but on unremitting dishonesty in the use of texts.\nThis was coming near the secret of the whole controversy, and the point\nthat made the interference of the Powers appear the only availing\nresource. For the sentiment on which infallibility is founded could not\nbe reached by argument, the weapon of human reason, but resided in\nconclusions transcending evidence, and was the inaccessible postulate\nrather than a demonstrable consequence of a system of religious faith.\nThe two doctrines opposed, but never met each other. It was as much an\ninstinct of the ultramontane theory to elude the tests of science as to\nresist the control of States. Its opponents, baffled and perplexed by\nthe serene vitality of a view which was impervious to proof, saw want of\nprinciple where there was really a consistent principle, and blamed the\nultramontane divines for that which was of the essence of ultramontane\ndivinity. How it came that no appeal to revelation or tradition, to\nreason or conscience, appeared to have any bearing whatever on the\nissue, is a mystery which Janus and Maret and Doellinger's reflections\nleft unexplained.\n\nThe resources of mediaeval learning were too slender to preserve an\nauthentic record of the growth and settlement of Catholic doctrine. Many\nwritings of the Fathers were interpolated; others were unknown, and\nspurious matter was accepted in their place. Books bearing venerable\nnames--Clement, Dionysius, Isidore--were forged for the purpose of\nsupplying authorities for opinions that lacked the sanction of\nantiquity. When detection came, and it was found that fraud had been\nemployed in sustaining doctrines bound up with the peculiar interests of\nRome and of the religious Orders, there was an inducement to depreciate\nthe evidences of antiquity, and to silence a voice that bore obnoxious\ntestimony. The notion of tradition underwent a change; it was required\nto produce what it had not preserved. The Fathers had spoken of the\nunwritten teaching of the apostles, which was to be sought in the\nchurches they had founded, of esoteric doctrines, and views which must\nbe of apostolic origin because they are universal, of the inspiration of\ngeneral Councils, and a revelation continued beyond the New Testament.\nBut the Council of Trent resisted the conclusions which this language\nseemed to countenance, and they were left to be pursued by private\nspeculation. One divine deprecated the vain pretence of arguing from\nScripture, by which Luther could not be confuted, and the Catholics were\nlosing ground;[374] and at Trent a speaker averred that Christian\ndoctrine had been so completely determined by the Schoolmen that there\nwas no further need to recur to Scripture. This idea is not extinct, and\nPerrone uses it to explain the inferiority of Catholics as Biblical\ncritics.[375] If the Bible is inspired, says Peresius, still more must\nits interpretation be inspired. It must be interpreted variously, says\nthe Cardinal of Cusa, according to necessity; a change in the opinion of\nthe Church implies a change in the will of God.[376] One of the greatest\nTridentine divines declares that a doctrine must be true if the Church\nbelieves it, without any warrant from Scripture. According to Petavius,\nthe general belief of Catholics at a given time is the work of God, and\nof higher authority than all antiquity and all the Fathers. Scripture\nmay be silent, and tradition contradictory, but the Church is\nindependent of both. Any doctrine which Catholic divines commonly\nassert, without proof, to be revealed, must be taken as revealed. The\ntestimony of Rome, as the only remaining apostolic Church, is equivalent\nto an unbroken chain of tradition.[377] In this way, after Scripture had\nbeen subjugated, tradition itself was deposed; and the constant belief\nof the past yielded to the general conviction of the present. And, as\nantiquity had given way to universality, universality made way for\nauthority. The Word of God and the authority of the Church came to be\ndeclared the two sources of religious knowledge. Divines of this school,\nafter preferring the Church to the Bible, preferred the modern Church to\nthe ancient, and ended by sacrificing both to the Pope. \"We have not the\nauthority of Scripture,\" wrote Prierias in his defence of Indulgences,\n\"but we have the higher authority of the Roman pontiffs.\"[378] A bishop\nwho had been present at Trent confesses that in matters of faith he\nwould believe a single Pope rather than a thousand Fathers, saints, and\ndoctors.[379] The divine training develops an orthodox instinct in the\nChurch, which shows itself in the lives of devout but ignorant men more\nthan in the researches of the learned, and teaches authority not to need\nthe help of science, and not to heed its opposition. All the arguments\nby which theology supports a doctrine may prove to be false, without\ndiminishing the certainty of its truth. The Church has not obtained, and\nis not bound to sustain it, by proof. She is supreme over fact as over\ndoctrine, as Fenelon argues, because she is the supreme expounder of\ntradition, which is a chain of facts.[380] Accordingly, the organ of one\nultramontane bishop lately declared that infallibility could be defined\nwithout arguments; and the Bishop of Nimes thought that the decision\nneed not be preceded by long and careful discussion. The Dogmatic\nCommission of the Council proclaims that the existence of tradition has\nnothing to do with evidence, and that objections taken from history are\nnot valid when contradicted by ecclesiastical decrees.[381] Authority\nmust conquer history.\n\nThis inclination to get rid of evidence was specially associated with\nthe doctrine of papal infallibility, because it is necessary that the\nPopes themselves should not testify against their own claim. They may be\ndeclared superior to all other authorities, but not to that of their own\nsee. Their history is not irrelevant to the question of their rights. It\ncould not be disregarded; and the provocation to alter or to deny its\ntestimony was so urgent that men of piety and learning became a prey to\nthe temptation of deceit. When it was discovered in the manuscript of\nthe _Liber Diurnus_ that the Popes had for centuries condemned Honorius\nin their profession of faith, Cardinal Bona, the most eminent man in\nRome, advised that the book should be suppressed if the difficulty could\nnot be got over; and it was suppressed accordingly.[382] Men guilty of\nthis kind of fraud would justify it by saying that their religion\ntranscends the wisdom of philosophers, and cannot submit to the\ncriticism of historians. If any fact manifestly contradicts a dogma,\nthat is a warning to science to revise the evidence. There must be some\ndefect in the materials or in the method. Pending its discovery, the\ntrue believer is constrained humbly but confidently to deny the fact.\n\nThe protest of conscience against this fraudulent piety grew loud and\nstrong as the art of criticism became more certain. The use made of it\nby Catholics in the literature of the present age, and their acceptance\nof the conditions of scientific controversy, seemed to ecclesiastical\nauthorities a sacrifice of principle. A jealousy arose that ripened into\nantipathy. Almost every writer who really served Catholicism fell sooner\nor later under the disgrace or the suspicion of Rome. But its censures\nhad lost efficacy; and it was found that the progress of literature\ncould only be brought under control by an increase of authority. This\ncould be obtained if a general council declared the decisions of the\nRoman congregations absolute, and the Pope infallible.\n\nThe division between the Roman and the Catholic elements in the Church\nmade it hopeless to mediate between them; and it is strange that men who\nmust have regarded each other as insincere Christians or as insincere\nCatholics, should not have perceived that their meeting in Council was\nan imposture. It may be that a portion, though only a small portion, of\nthose who failed to attend, stayed away from that motive. But the view\nproscribed at Rome was not largely represented in the episcopate; and it\nwas doubtful whether it would be manifested at all. The opposition did\nnot spring from it, but maintained itself by reducing to the utmost the\ndistance that separated it from the strictly Roman opinions, and\nstriving to prevent the open conflict of principles. It was composed of\nultramontanes in the mask of liberals, and of liberals in the mask of\nultramontanes. Therefore the victory or defeat of the minority was not\nthe supreme issue of the Council. Besides and above the definition of\ninfallibility arose the question how far the experience of the actual\nencounter would open the eyes and search the hearts of the reluctant\nbishops, and how far their language and their attitude would contribute\nto the impulse of future reform. There was a point of view from which\nthe failure of all attempts to avert the result by false issues and\nforeign intrusion, and the success of the measures which repelled\nconciliation and brought on an open struggle and an overwhelming\ntriumph, were means to another and a more importunate end.\n\nTwo events occurred in the autumn which portended trouble for the\nwinter. On the 6th of September nineteen German bishops, assembled at\nFulda, published a pastoral letter in which they affirmed that the whole\nepiscopate was perfectly unanimous, that the Council would neither\nintroduce new dogmas nor invade the civil province, and that the Pope\nintended its deliberations to be free. The patent and direct meaning of\nthis declaration was that the bishops repudiated the design announced by\nthe _Civilta_ and the _alleging Zeitung_, and it was received at Rome\nwith indignation. But it soon appeared that it was worded with studied\nambiguity, to be signed by men of opposite opinions, and to conceal the\ntruth. The Bishop of Mentz read a paper, written by a professor of\nWuerzburg, against the wisdom of raising the question, but expressed his\nown belief in the dogma of papal infallibility; and when another bishop\nstated his disbelief in it, the Bishop of Paderborn assured him that\nRome would soon strip him of his heretical skin. The majority wished to\nprevent the definition, if possible, without disputing the doctrine; and\nthey wrote a private letter to the Pope warning him of the danger, and\nentreating him to desist. Several bishops who had signed the pastoral\nrefused their signatures to the private letter. It caused so much dismay\nat Rome that its nature was carefully concealed; and a diplomatist was\nable to report, on the authority of Cardinal Antonelli, that it did not\nexist.\n\nIn the middle of November, the Bishop of Orleans took leave of his\ndiocese in a letter which touched lightly on the learned questions\nconnected with papal infallibility, but described the objections to the\ndefinition as of such a kind that they could not be removed. Coming from\na prelate who was so conspicuous as a champion of the papacy, who had\nsaved the temporal power and justified the Syllabus, this declaration\nunexpectedly altered the situation at Rome. It was clear that the\ndefinition would be opposed, and that the opposition would have the\nsupport of illustrious names.\n\nThe bishops who began to arrive early in November were received with the\nassurance that the alarm which had been raised was founded on phantoms.\nIt appeared that nobody had dreamed of defining infallibility, or that,\nif the idea had been entertained at all, it had been abandoned.\nCardinals Antonelli, Berardi, and De Luca, and the Secretary Fessler\ndisavowed the _Civilta_. The ardent indiscretion that was displayed\nbeyond the Alps contrasted strangely with the moderation, the friendly\ncandour, the majestic and impartial wisdom, which were found to reign in\nthe higher sphere of the hierarchy. A bishop, afterwards noted among the\nopponents of the dogma, wrote home that the idea that infallibility was\nto be defined was entirely unfounded. It was represented as a mere\nfancy, got up in Bavarian newspapers, with evil intent; and the Bishop\nof Sura had been its dupe. The insidious report would have deserved\ncontempt if it had caused a revival of obsolete opinions. It was a\nchallenge to the Council to herald it with such demonstrations, and it\nunfortunately became difficult to leave it unnoticed. The decision must\nbe left to the bishops. The Holy See could not restrain their legitimate\nardour, if they chose to express it; but it would take no initiative.\nWhatever was done would require to be done with so much moderation as to\nsatisfy everybody, and to avoid the offence of a party triumph. Some\nsuggested that there should be no anathema for those who questioned the\ndoctrine; and one prelate imagined that a formula could be contrived\nwhich even Janus could not dispute, and which yet would be found in\nreality to signify that the Pope is infallible. There was a general\nassumption that no materials existed for contention among the bishops,\nand that they stood united against the world.\n\nCardinal Antonelli openly refrained from connecting himself with the\npreparation of the Council, and surrounded himself with divines who were\nnot of the ruling party. He had never learned to doubt the dogma itself;\nbut he was keenly alive to the troubles it would bring upon him, and\nthought that the Pope was preparing a repetition of the difficulties\nwhich followed the beginning of his pontificate. He was not trusted as a\ndivine, or consulted on questions of theology; but he was expected to\nward off political complications, and he kept the ground with\nunflinching skill.\n\nThe Pope exhorted the diplomatic corps to aid him in allaying the alarm\nof the infatuated Germans. He assured one diplomatist that the _Civilta_\ndid not speak in his name. He told another that he would sanction no\nproposition that could sow dissension among the bishops. He said to a\nthird, \"You come to be present at a scene of pacification.\" He described\nhis object in summoning the Council to be to obtain a remedy for old\nabuses and for recent errors. More than once, addressing a group of\nbishops, he said that he would do nothing to raise disputes among them,\nand would be content with a declaration in favour of intolerance. He\nwished of course that Catholicism should have the benefit of toleration\nin England and Russia, but the principle must be repudiated by a Church\nholding the doctrine of exclusive salvation. The meaning of this\nintimation, that persecution would do as a substitute for infallibility,\nwas that the most glaring obstacle to the definition would be removed if\nthe Inquisition was recognised as consistent with Catholicism. Indeed it\nseemed that infallibility was a means to an end which could be obtained\nin other ways, and that he would have been satisfied with a decree\nconfirming the twenty-third article of the Syllabus, and declaring that\nno Pope has ever exceeded the just bounds of his authority in faith, in\npolitics, or in morals.[383]\n\nMost of the bishops had allowed themselves to be reassured, when the\nBull _Multiplices inter_, regulating the procedure at the Council, was\nput into circulation in the first days of December. The Pope assumed to\nhimself the sole initiative in proposing topics, and the exclusive\nnomination of the officers of the Council. He invited the bishops to\nbring forward their own proposals, but required that they should submit\nthem first of all to a Commission which was appointed by himself, and\nconsisted half of Italians. If any proposal was allowed to pass by this\nCommission, it had still to obtain the sanction of the Pope, who could\ntherefore exclude at will any topic, even if the whole Council wished to\ndiscuss it. Four elective Commissions were to mediate between the\nCouncil and the Pope. When a decree had been discussed and opposed, it\nwas to be referred, together with the amendments, to one of these\nCommissions, where it was to be reconsidered, with the aid of divines.\nWhen it came back from the Commission with corrections and remarks, it\nwas to be put to the vote without further debate. What the Council\ndiscussed was to be the work of unknown divines: what it voted was to be\nthe work of a majority in a Commission of twenty-four. It was in the\nelection of these Commissions that the episcopate obtained the chance of\ninfluencing the formation of its decrees. But the papal theologians\nretained their predominance, for they might be summoned to defend or\nalter their work in the Commission, from which the bishops who had\nspoken or proposed amendments were excluded. Practically, the right of\ninitiative was the deciding point. Even if the first regulation had\nremained in force, the bishops could never have recovered the surprises,\nand the difficulty of preparing for unforeseen debates. The regulation\nultimately broke down under the mistake of allowing the decree to be\ndebated only once, and that in its crude state, as it came from the\nhands of the divines. The authors of the measure had not contemplated\nany real discussion. It was so unlike the way in which business was\nconducted at Trent, where the right of the episcopate was formally\nasserted, where the envoys were consulted, and the bishops discussed the\nquestions in several groups before the general congregations, that the\nprinted text of the Tridentine Regulation was rigidly suppressed. It was\nfurther provided that the reports of the speeches should not be\ncommunicated to the bishops; and the strictest secrecy was enjoined on\nall concerning the business of the Council. The bishops, being under no\nobligation to observe this rule, were afterwards informed that it bound\nthem under grievous sin.\n\nThis important precept did not succeed in excluding the action of public\nopinion. It could be applied only to the debates; and many bishops spoke\nwith greater energy and freedom before an assembly of their own order\nthan they would have done if their words had been taken down by\nProtestants, to be quoted against them at home. But printed documents,\ndistributed in seven hundred copies, could not be kept secret. The rule\nwas subject to exceptions which destroyed its efficacy; and the Roman\ncause was discredited by systematic concealment, and advocacy that\nabounded in explanation and colour, but abstained from the substance of\nfact. Documents couched in the usual official language, being dragged\ninto the forbidden light of day, were supposed to reveal dark mysteries.\nThe secrecy of the debates had a bad effect in exaggerating reports and\ngiving wide scope to fancy. Rome was not vividly interested in the\ndiscussions; but its cosmopolitan society was thronged with the several\nadherents of leading bishops, whose partiality compromised their dignity\nand envenomed their disputes. Everything that was said was repeated,\ninflated, and distorted. Whoever had a sharp word for an adversary,\nwhich could not be spoken in Council, knew of an audience that would\nenjoy and carry the matter. The battles of the Aula were fought over\nagain, with anecdote, epigram, and fiction. A distinguished courtesy and\nnobleness of tone prevailed at the beginning. When the Archbishop of\nHalifax went down to his place on the 28th of December, after delivering\nthe speech which taught the reality of the opposition, the Presidents\nbowed to him as he passed them. The denunciations of the Roman system by\nStrossmayer and Darboy were listened to in January without a murmur.\nAdversaries paid exorbitant compliments to each other, like men whose\ndisagreements were insignificant, and who were one at heart. As the plot\nthickened, fatigue, excitement, friends who fetched and carried, made\nthe tone more bitter. In February the Bishop of Laval described\nDupanloup publicly as the centre of a conspiracy too shameful to be\nexpressed in words, and professed that he would rather die than be\nassociated with such iniquity. One of the minority described his\nopponents as having disported themselves on a certain occasion like a\nherd of cattle. By that time the whole temper of the Council had been\nchanged; the Pope himself had gone into the arena; and violence of\nlanguage and gesture had become an artifice adopted to hasten the end.\n\nWhen the Council opened, many bishops were bewildered and dispirited by\nthe Bull _Multiplices_. They feared that a struggle could not be\naverted, as, even if no dogmatic question was raised, their rights were\ncancelled in a way that would make the Pope absolute in dogma. One of\nthe Cardinals caused him to be informed that the Regulation would be\nresisted. But Pius IX. knew that in all that procession of 750 bishops\none idea prevailed. Men whose word is powerful in the centres of\ncivilisation, men who three months before were confronting martyrdom\namong barbarians, preachers at Notre Dame, professors from Germany,\nRepublicans from Western America, men with every sort of training and\nevery sort of experience, had come together as confident and as eager as\nthe prelates of Rome itself, to hail the Pope infallible. Resistance was\nimprobable, for it was hopeless. It was improbable that bishops who had\nrefused no token of submission for twenty years would now combine to\ninflict dishonour on the Pope. In their address of 1867 they had\nconfessed that he is the father and teacher of all Christians; that all\nthe things he has spoken were spoken by St. Peter through him; that they\nwould believe and teach all that he believed and taught. In 1854 they\nhad allowed him to proclaim a dogma, which some of them dreaded and some\nopposed, but to which all submitted when he had decreed without the\nintervention of a Council. The recent display of opposition did not\njustify serious alarm. The Fulda bishops feared the consequences in\nGermany; but they affirmed that all were united, and that there would be\nno new dogma. They were perfectly informed of all that was being got\nready in Rome. The words of their pastoral meant nothing if they did not\nmean that infallibility was no new dogma, and that all the bishops\nbelieved in it. Even the Bishop of Orleans avoided a direct attack on\nthe doctrine, proclaimed his own devotion to the Pope, and promised that\nthe Council would be a scene of concord.[384] It was certain that any\nreal attempt that might be made to prevent the definition could be\noverwhelmed by the preponderance of those bishops whom the modern\nconstitution of the Church places in dependence on Rome.\n\nThe only bishops whose position made them capable of resisting were the\nGermans and the French; and all that Rome would have to contend with was\nthe modern liberalism and decrepit Gallicanism of France, and the\nscience of Germany. The Gallican school was nearly extinct; it had no\nfooting in other countries, and it was essentially odious to the\nliberals. The most serious minds of the liberal party were conscious\nthat Rome was as dangerous to ecclesiastical liberty as Paris. But,\nsince the Syllabus made it impossible to pursue the liberal doctrines\nconsistently without collision with Rome, they had ceased to be\nprofessed with a robust and earnest confidence, and the party was\ndisorganised. They set up the pretence that the real adversary of their\nopinions was not the Pope, but a French newspaper; and they fought the\nKing's troops in the King's name. When the Bishop of Orleans made his\ndeclaration, they fell back, and left him to mount the breach alone.\nMontalembert, the most vigorous spirit among them, became isolated from\nhis former friends, and accused them, with increasing vehemence, of\nbeing traitors to their principles. During the last disheartening year\nof his life he turned away from the clergy of his country, which was\nsunk in Romanism, and felt that the real abode of his opinions was on\nthe Rhine.[385] It was only lately that the ideas of the Coblentz\naddress, which had so deeply touched the sympathies of Montalembert, had\nspread widely in Germany. They had their seat in the universities; and\ntheir transit from the interior of lecture-rooms to the outer world was\nlaborious and slow. The invasion of Roman doctrines had given vigour and\npopularity to those which opposed them, but the growing influence of the\nuniversities brought them into direct antagonism with the episcopate.\nThe Austrian bishops were generally beyond its reach, and the German\nbishops were generally at war with it. In December, one of the most\nillustrious of them said: \"We bishops are absorbed in our work, and are\nnot scholars. We sadly need the help of those that are. It is to be\nhoped that the Council will raise only such questions as can be dealt\nwith competently by practical experience and common sense.\" The force\nthat Germany wields in theology was only partially represented in its\nepiscopate.\n\nAt the opening of the Council the known opposition consisted of four\nmen. Cardinal Schwarzenberg had not published his opinion, but he made\nit known as soon as he came to Rome. He brought with him a printed\npaper, entitled _Desideria patribus Concilii oecumenici proponenda_, in\nwhich he adopted the ideas of the divines and canonists who are the\nteachers of his Bohemian clergy. He entreated the Council not to\nmultiply unnecessary articles of faith, and in particular to abstain\nfrom defining papal infallibility, which was beset with difficulties,\nand would make the foundations of faith to tremble even in the devoutest\nsouls. He pointed out that the Index could not continue on its present\nfooting, and urged that the Church should seek her strength in the\ncultivation of liberty and learning, not in privilege and coercion; that\nshe should rely on popular institutions, and obtain popular support. He\nwarmly advocated the system of autonomy that was springing up in\nHungary.[386] Unlike Schwarzenberg, Dupanloup, and Maret, the Archbishop\nof Paris had taken no hostile step in reference to the Council, but he\nwas feared the most of all the men expected at Rome. The Pope had\nrefused to make him a cardinal, and had written to him a letter of\nreproof such as has seldom been received by a bishop. It was felt that\nhe was hostile, not episodically, to a single measure, but to the\npeculiar spirit of this pontificate. He had none of the conventional\nprejudices and assumed antipathies which are congenial to the\nhierarchical mind. He was without passion or pathos or affectation; and\nhe had good sense, a perfect temper, and an intolerable wit. It was\ncharacteristic of him that he made the Syllabus an occasion to impress\nmoderation on the Pope: \"Your blame has power, O Vicar of Jesus Christ;\nbut your blessing is more potent still. God has raised you to the\napostolic See between the two halves of this century, that you may\nabsolve the one and inaugurate the other. Be it yours to reconcile\nreason with faith, liberty with authority, politics with the Church.\nFrom the height of that triple majesty with which religion, age, and\nmisfortune adorn you, all that you do and all that you say reaches far,\nto disconcert or to encourage the nations. Give them from your large\npriestly heart one word to amnesty the past, to reassure the present,\nand to open the horizons of the future.\"\n\nThe security into which many unsuspecting bishops had been lulled\nquickly disappeared; and they understood that they were in presence of a\nconspiracy which would succeed at once if they did not provide against\nacclamation, and must succeed at last if they allowed themselves to be\ncaught in the toils of the Bull _Multiplices_. It was necessary to make\nsure that no decree should be passed without reasonable discussion, and\nto make a stand against the regulation. The first congregation, held on\nthe 10th of December, was a scene of confusion; but it appeared that a\nbishop from the Turkish frontier had risen against the order of\nproceeding, and that the President had stopped him, saying that this was\na matter decided by the Pope, and not submitted to the Council. The\nbishops perceived that they were in a snare. Some began to think of\ngoing home. Others argued that questions of Divine right were affected\nby the regulation, and that they were bound to stake the existence of\nthe Council upon them. Many were more eager on this point of law than on\nthe point of dogma, and were brought under the influence of the more\nclear-sighted men, with whom they would not have come in contact through\nany sympathy on the question of infallibility. The desire of protesting\nagainst the violation of privileges was an imperfect bond. The bishops\nhad not yet learned to know each other; and they had so strongly\nimpressed upon their flocks at home the idea that Rome ought to be\ntrusted, that they were going to manifest the unity of the Church and to\nconfound the insinuations of her enemies, that they were not quick to\nadmit all the significance of the facts they found. Nothing vigorous was\npossible in a body of so loose a texture. The softer materials had to be\neliminated, the stronger welded together by severe and constant\npressure, before an opposition could be made capable of effective\naction. They signed protests that were of no effect. They petitioned;\nthey did not resist.\n\nIt was seen how much Rome had gained by excluding the ambassadors; for\nthis question of forms and regulations would have admitted the action of\ndiplomacy. The idea of being represented at the Council was revived in\nFrance; and a weary negotiation began, which lasted several months, and\naccomplished nothing but delay. It was not till the policy of\nintervention had ignominiously failed, and till its failure had left the\nRoman court to cope with the bishops alone, that the real question was\nbrought on for discussion. And as long as the chance remained that\npolitical considerations might keep infallibility out of the Council,\nthe opposition abstained from declaring its real sentiments. Its union\nwas precarious and delusive, but it lasted in this state long enough to\nenable secondary influences to do much towards supplying the place of\nprinciples.\n\nWhile the protesting bishops were not committed against infallibility,\nit would have been possible to prevent resistance to the bull from\nbecoming resistance to the dogma. The Bishop of Grenoble, who was\nreputed a good divine among his countrymen, was sounded in order to\ndiscover how far he would go; and it was ascertained that he admitted\nthe doctrine substantially. At the same time, the friends of the Bishop\nof Orleans were insisting that he had questioned not the dogma but the\ndefinition; and Maret, in the defence of his book, declared that he\nattributed no infallibility to the episcopate apart from the Pope. If\nthe bishops had been consulted separately, without the terror of a\ndecree, it is probable that the number of those who absolutely rejected\nthe doctrine would have been extremely small. There were many who had\nnever thought seriously about it, or imagined that it was true in a\npious sense, though not capable of proof in controversy. The possibility\nof an understanding seemed so near that the archbishop of Westminster,\nwho held the Pope infallible apart from the episcopate, required that\nthe words should be translated into French in the sense of independence,\nand not of exclusion. An ambiguous formula embodying the view common to\nboth parties, or founded on mutual concession, would have done more for\nthe liberty than the unity of opinion, and would not have strengthened\nthe authority of the Pope. It was resolved to proceed with caution,\nputting in motion the strong machinery of Rome, and exhausting the\nadvantages of organisation and foreknowledge.\n\nThe first act of the Council was to elect the Commission on Dogma. A\nproposal was made on very high authority that the list should be drawn\nup so as to represent the different opinions fairly, and to include some\nof the chief opponents. They would have been subjected to other\ninfluences than those which sustain party leaders; they would have been\nseparated from their friends and brought into frequent contact with\nadversaries; they would have felt the strain of official responsibility;\nand the opposition would have been decapitated. If these sagacious\ncounsels had been followed, the harvest of July might have been gathered\nin January, and the reaction that was excited in the long struggle that\nensued might have been prevented. Cardinal de Angelis, who ostensibly\nmanaged the elections, and was advised by Archbishop Manning, preferred\nthe opposite and more prudent course. He caused a lithographed list to\nbe sent to all the bishops open to influence, from which every name was\nexcluded that was not on the side of infallibility.\n\nMeantime the bishops of several nations selected those among their\ncountrymen whom they recommended as candidates. The Germans and\nHungarians, above forty in number, assembled for this purpose under the\npresidency of Cardinal Schwarzenberg; and their meetings were continued,\nand became more and more important, as those who did not sympathise with\nthe opposition dropped away. The French were divided into two groups,\nand met partly at Cardinal Mathieu's, partly at Cardinal Bonnechose's. A\nfusion was proposed, but was resisted, in the Roman interest, by\nBonnechose. He consulted Cardinal Antonelli, and reported that the Pope\ndisliked large meetings of bishops. Moreover, if all the French had met\nin one place, the opposition would have had the majority, and would have\ndetermined the choice of the candidates. They voted separately; and the\nBonnechose list was represented to foreign bishops as the united choice\nof the French episcopate. The Mathieu group believed that this had been\ndone fraudulently, and resolved to make their complaint to the Pope; but\nCardinal Mathieu, seeing that a storm was rising, and that he would be\ncalled on to be the spokesman of his friends, hurried away to spend\nChristmas at Besancon. All the votes of his group were thrown away. Even\nthe bishop of Grenoble, who had obtained twenty-nine votes at one\nmeeting, and thirteen at the other, was excluded from the Commission. It\nwas constituted as the managers of the election desired, and the first\ntrial of strength appeared to have annihilated the opposition. The force\nunder entire control of the court could be estimated from the number of\nvotes cast blindly for candidates not put forward by their own\ncountrymen, and unknown to others, who had therefore no recommendation\nbut that of the official list. According to this test Rome could dispose\nof 550 votes.\n\nThe moment of this triumph was chosen for the production of an act\nalready two months old, by which many ancient censures were revoked, and\nmany were renewed. The legislation of the Middle Ages and of the\nsixteenth century appointed nearly two hundred cases by which\nexcommunication was incurred _ipso facto_, without inquiry or sentence.\nThey had generally fallen into oblivion, or were remembered as instances\nof former extravagance; but they had not been abrogated, and, as they\nwere in part defensible, they were a trouble to timorous consciences.\nThere was reason to expect that this question, which had often occupied\nthe attention of the bishops, would be brought before the Council; and\nthe demand for a reform could not have been withstood. The difficulty\nwas anticipated by sweeping away as many censures as it was thought safe\nto abandon, and deciding, independently of the bishops, what must be\nretained. The Pope reserved to himself alone the faculty of absolving\nfrom the sin of harbouring or defending the members of any sect, of\ncausing priests to be tried by secular courts, of violating asylum or\nalienating the real property of the Church. The prohibition of anonymous\nwriting was restricted to works on theology, and the excommunication\nhitherto incurred by reading books which are on the Index was confined\nto readers of heretical books. This Constitution had no other immediate\neffect than to indicate the prevailing spirit, and to increase the\ndifficulties of the partisans of Rome. The organ of the Archbishop of\nCologne justified the last provision by saying, that it does not forbid\nthe works of Jews, for Jews are not heretics; nor the heretical tracts\nand newspapers, for they are not books; nor listening to heretical books\nread aloud, for hearing is not reading.\n\nAt the same time, the serious work of the Council was begun. A long\ndogmatic decree was distributed, in which the special theological,\nbiblical, and philosophical opinions of the school now dominant in Rome\nwere proposed for ratification. It was so weak a composition that it was\nas severely criticised by the Romans as by the foreigners; and there\nwere Germans whose attention was first called to its defects by an\nItalian cardinal. The disgust with which the text of the first decree\nwas received had not been foreseen. No real discussion had been\nexpected. The Council hall, admirable for occasions of ceremony, was\nextremely ill adapted for speaking, and nothing would induce the Pope to\ngive it up. A public session was fixed for the 6th of January, and the\nelection of Commissions was to last till Christmas. It was evident that\nnothing would be ready for the session, unless the decree was accepted\nwithout debate, or infallibility adopted by acclamation.\n\nBefore the Council had been assembled a fortnight, a store of discontent\nhad accumulated which it would have been easy to avoid. Every act of the\nPope, the Bull _Multiplices_, the declaration of censures, the text of\nthe proposed decree, even the announcement that the Council should be\ndissolved in case of his death, had seemed an injury or an insult to the\nepiscopate. These measures undid the favourable effect of the caution\nwith which the bishops had been received. They did what the dislike of\ninfallibility alone would not have done. They broke the spell of\nveneration for Pius IX. which fascinated the Catholic Episcopate. The\njealousy with which he guarded his prerogative in the appointment of\nofficers, and of the great Commission, the pressure during the\nelections, the prohibition of national meetings, the refusal to hold the\ndebates in a hall where they could be heard, irritated and alarmed many\nbishops. They suspected that they had been summoned for the very purpose\nthey had indignantly denied, to make the papacy more absolute by\nabdicating in favour of the official prelature of Rome. Confidence gave\nway to a great despondency, and a state of feeling was aroused which\nprepared the way for actual opposition when the time should come.\n\nBefore Christmas the Germans and the French were grouped nearly as they\nremained to the end. After the flight of Cardinal Mathieu, and the\nrefusal of Cardinal Bonnechose to coalesce, the friends of the latter\ngravitated towards the Roman centre, and the friends of the former held\ntheir meetings at the house of the Archbishop of Paris. They became,\nwith the Austro-German meeting under Cardinal Schwarzenberg, the\nstrength and substance of the party that opposed the new dogma; but\nthere was little intercourse between the two, and their exclusive\nnationality made them useless as a nucleus for the few scattered\nAmerican, English, and Italian bishops whose sympathies were with them.\nTo meet this object, and to centralise the deliberations, about a dozen\nof the leading men constituted an international meeting, which included\nthe best talents, but also the most discordant views. They were too\nlittle united to act with vigour, and too few to exercise control. Some\nmonths later they increased their numbers. They were the brain but not\nthe will of the opposition. Cardinal Rauscher presided. Rome honoured\nhim as the author of the Austrian Concordat; but he feared that\ninfallibility would bring destruction on his work, and he was the most\nconstant, the most copious, and the most emphatic of its opponents.\n\nWhen the debate opened, on the 28th of December, the idea of proclaiming\nthe dogma by acclamation had not been abandoned. The Archbishop of Paris\nexacted a promise that it should not be attempted. But he was warned\nthat the promise held good for the first day only, and that there was no\nengagement for the future. Then he made it known that one hundred\nbishops were ready, if a surprise was attempted, to depart from Rome,\nand to carry away the Council, as he said, in the soles of their shoes.\nThe plan of carrying the measure by a sudden resolution was given up,\nand it was determined to introduce it with a demonstration of\noverwhelming effect. The debate on the dogmatic decree was begun by\nCardinal Rauscher. The Archbishop of St. Louis spoke on the same day so\nbriefly as not to reveal the force and the fire within him. The\nArchbishop of Halifax concluded a long speech by saying that the\nproposal laid before the Council was only fit to be put decorously under\nground. Much praise was lavished on the bishops who had courage,\nknowledge, and Latin enough to address the assembled Fathers; and the\nCouncil rose instantly in dignity and in esteem when it was seen that\nthere was to be real discussion. On the 30th, Rome was excited by the\nsuccess of two speakers. One was the Bishop of Grenoble, the other was\nStrossmayer, the bishop from the Turkish frontier, who had again\nassailed the regulation, and had again been stopped by the presiding\nCardinal. The fame of his spirit and eloquence began to spread over the\ncity and over the world. The ideas that animated these men in their\nattack on the proposed measure were most clearly shown a few days later\nin the speech of a Swiss prelate. \"What boots it,\" he exclaimed, \"to\ncondemn errors that have been long condemned, and tempt no Catholic? The\nfalse beliefs of mankind are beyond the reach of your decrees. The best\ndefence of Catholicism is religious science. Give to the pursuit of\nsound learning every encouragement and the widest field; and prove by\ndeeds as well as words that the progress of nations in liberty and light\nis the mission of the Church.\"[387]\n\nThe tempest of criticism was weakly met; and the opponents established\nat once a superiority in debate. At the end of the first month nothing\nhad been done; and the Session imprudently fixed for the 6th of January\nhad to be filled up with tedious ceremonies. Everybody saw that there\nhad been a great miscalculation. The Council was slipping out of the\ngrasp of the Court, and the regulation was a manifest hindrance to the\ndespatch of business. New resources were required.\n\nA new president was appointed. Cardinal Reisach had died at the end of\nDecember without having been able to take his seat, and Cardinal De Luca\nhad presided in his stead. De Angelis was now put into the place made\nvacant by the death of Reisach. He had suffered imprisonment at Turin,\nand the glory of his confessorship was enhanced by his services in the\nelection of the Commissions. He was not suited otherwise to be the\nmoderator of a great assembly; and the effect of his elevation was to\ndethrone the accomplished and astute De Luca, who had been found\ndeficient in thoroughness, and to throw the management of the Council\ninto the hands of the junior Presidents, Capalti and Bilio. Bilio was a\nBarnabite monk, innocent of court intrigues, a friend of the most\nenlightened scholars in Rome, and a favourite of the Pope. Cardinal\nCapalti had been distinguished as a canonist. Like Cardinal Bilio, he\nwas not reckoned among men of the extreme party; and they were not\nalways in harmony with their colleagues, De Angelis and Bizarri. But\nthey did not waver when the policy they had to execute was not their\nown.\n\nThe first decree was withdrawn, and referred to the Commission on\nDoctrine. Another, on the duties of the episcopate, was substituted; and\nthat again was followed by others, of which the most important was on\nthe Catechism. While they were being discussed, a petition was prepared,\ndemanding that the infallibility of the Pope should be made the object\nof a decree. The majority undertook to put a strain on the prudence or\nthe reluctance of the Vatican. Their zeal in the cause was warmer than\nthat of the official advisers. Among those who had the responsibility of\nconducting the spiritual and temporal government of the Pope, the belief\nwas strong that his infallibility did not need defining, and that the\ndefinition could not be obtained without needless obstruction to other\npapal interests. Several Cardinals were inopportunists at first, and\nafterwards promoted intermediate and conciliatory proposals. But the\nbusiness of the Council was not left to the ordinary advisers of the\nPope, and they were visibly compelled and driven by those who\nrepresented the majority. At times this pressure was no doubt\nconvenient. But there were also times when there was no collusion, and\nthe majority really led the authorities. The initiative was not taken by\nthe great mass whose zeal was stimulated by personal allegiance to the\nPope. They added to the momentum, but the impulse came from men who were\nas independent as the chiefs of the opposition. The great Petition,\nsupported by others pointing to the same end, was kept back for several\nweeks, and was presented at the end of January.\n\nAt that time the opposition had attained its full strength, and\npresented a counter-petition, praying that the question might not be\nintroduced. It was written by Cardinal Rauscher, and was signed, with\nvariations, by 137 bishops. To obtain that number the address avoided\nthe doctrine itself, and spoke only of the difficulty and danger in\ndefining it; so that this, their most imposing act, was a confession of\ninherent weakness, and a signal to the majority that they might force on\nthe dogmatic discussion. The bishops stood on the negative. They showed\nno sense of their mission to renovate Catholicism; and it seemed that\nthey would compound for the concession they wanted, by yielding in all\nother matters, even those which would be a practical substitute for\ninfallibility. That this was not to be, that the forces needed for a\ngreat revival were really present, was made manifest by the speech of\nStrossmayer on the 24th of January, when he demanded the reformation of\nthe Court of Rome, decentralisation in the government of the Church, and\ndecennial Councils. That earnest spirit did not animate the bulk of the\nparty. They were content to leave things as they were, to gain nothing\nif they lost nothing, to renounce all premature striving for reform if\nthey could succeed in avoiding a doctrine which they were as unwilling\nto discuss as to define. The words of Ginoulhiac to Strossmayer, \"You\nterrify me with your pitiless logic,\" expressed the inmost feelings of\nmany who gloried in the grace and the splendour of his eloquence. No\nwords were too strong for them if they prevented the necessity of\naction, and spared the bishops the distressing prospect of being brought\nto bay, and having to resist openly the wishes and the claims of Rome.\n\nInfallibility never ceased to overshadow every step of the Council,[388]\nbut it had already given birth to a deeper question. The Church had less\nto fear from the violence of the majority than from the inertness of\ntheir opponents. No proclamation of false doctrines could be so great a\ndisaster as the weakness of faith which would prove that the power of\nrecovery, the vital force of Catholicism, was extinct in the episcopate.\nIt was better to be overcome after openly attesting their belief than to\nstrangle both discussion and definition, and to disperse without having\nuttered a single word that could reinstate the authorities of the Church\nin the respect of men. The future depended less on the outward struggle\nbetween two parties than on the process by which the stronger spirit\nwithin the minority leavened the mass. The opposition was as averse to\nthe actual dogmatic discussion among themselves as in the Council. They\nfeared an inquiry which would divide them. At first the bishops who\nunderstood and resolutely contemplated their real mission in the Council\nwere exceedingly few. Their influence was strengthened by the force of\nevents, by the incessant pressure of the majority, and by the action of\nliterary opinion.\n\nEarly in December the Archbishop of Mechlin brought out a reply to the\nletter of the Bishop of Orleans, who immediately prepared a rejoinder,\nbut could not obtain permission to print it in Rome. It appeared two\nmonths later at Naples. Whilst the minority were under the shock of this\nprohibition, Gratry published at Paris the first of four letters to the\nArchbishop of Mechlin, in which the case of Honorius was discussed with\nso much perspicuity and effect that the profane public was interested,\nand the pamphlets were read with avidity in Rome. They contained no new\nresearch, but they went deep into the causes which divided Catholics.\nGratry showed that the Roman theory is still propped by fables which\nwere innocent once, but have become deliberate untruths since the excuse\nof mediaeval ignorance was dispelled; and he declared that this school of\nlies was the cause of the weakness of the Church, and called on\nCatholics to look the scandal in the face, and cast out the religious\nforgers. His letters did much to clear the ground and to correct the\nconfusion of ideas among the French. The bishop of St. Brieuc wrote that\nthe exposure was an excellent service to religion, for the evil had gone\nso far that silence would be complicity.[389] Gratry was no sooner\napproved by one bishop than he was condemned by a great number of\nothers. He had brought home to his countrymen the question whether they\ncould be accomplices of a dishonest system, or would fairly attempt to\nroot it out.\n\nWhile Gratry's letters were disturbing the French, Doellinger published\nsome observations on the petition for infallibility, directing his\nattack clearly against the doctrine itself. During the excitement that\nensued, he answered demonstrations of sympathy by saying that he had\nonly defended the faith which was professed, substantially, by the\nmajority of the episcopate in Germany. These words dropped like an acid\non the German bishops. They were writhing to escape the dire necessity\nof a conflict with the Pope; and it was very painful to them to be\ncalled as compurgators by a man who was esteemed the foremost opponent\nof the Roman system, whose hand was suspected in everything that had\nbeen done against it, and who had written many things on the sovereign\nobligations of truth and faith which seemed an unmerciful satire on the\ntactics to which they clung. The notion that the bishops were opposing\nthe dogma itself was founded on their address against the regulation;\nbut the petition against the definition of infallibility was so worded\nas to avoid that inference, and had accordingly obtained nearly twice as\nmany German and Hungarian signatures as the other. The Bishop of Mentz\nvehemently repudiated the supposition for himself, and invited his\ncolleagues to do the same. Some followed his example, others refused;\nand it became apparent that the German opposition was divided, and\nincluded men who accepted the doctrines of Rome. The precarious alliance\nbetween incompatible elements was prevented from breaking up by the next\nact of the Papal Government.\n\nThe defects in the mode of carrying on the business of the Council were\nadmitted on both sides. Two months had been lost; and the demand for a\nradical change was publicly made in behalf of the minority by a letter\ncommunicated to the _Moniteur_. On the 22nd of February a new\nregulation was introduced, with the avowed purpose of quickening\nprogress. It gave the Presidents power to cut short any speech, and\nprovided that debate might be cut short at any moment when the majority\npleased. It also declared that the decrees should be carried by\nmajority--_id decernetur quod majori Patrum numero placuerit_. The\npolicy of leaving the decisive power in the hands of the Council itself\nhad this advantage, that its exercise would not raise the question of\nliberty and coercion in the same way as the interference of authority.\nBy the Bull _Multiplices_, no bishop could introduce any matter not\napproved by the Pope. By the new regulation he could not speak on any\nquestion before the Council, if the majority chose to close the\ndiscussion, or if the Presidents chose to abridge his speech. He could\nprint nothing in Rome, and what was printed elsewhere was liable to be\ntreated as contraband. His written observations on any measure were\nsubmitted to the Commission, without any security that they would be\nmade known to the other bishops in their integrity. There was no longer\nan obstacle to the immediate definition of papal infallibility. The\nmajority was omnipotent.\n\nThe minority could not accept this regulation without admitting that the\nPope is infallible. Their thesis was, that his decrees are not free from\nthe risk of error unless they express the universal belief of the\nepiscopate. The idea that particular virtue attaches to a certain number\nof bishops, or that infallibility depends on a few votes more or less,\nwas defended by nobody. If the act of a majority of bishops in the\nCouncil, possibly not representing a majority in the Church, is\ninfallible, it derives its infallibility from the Pope. Nobody held that\nthe Pope was bound to proclaim a dogma carried by a majority. The\nminority contested the principle of the new Regulation, and declared\nthat a dogmatic decree required virtual unanimity. The chief protest was\ndrawn up by a French bishop. Some of the Hungarians added a paragraph\nasserting that the authority and oecumenicity of the Council depended\non the settlement of this question; and they proposed to add that they\ncould not continue to act as though it were legitimate unless this point\nwas given up. The author of the address declined this passage, urging\nthat the time for actual menace was not yet come. From that day the\nminority agreed in rejecting as invalid any doctrine which should not be\npassed by unanimous consent. On this point the difference between the\nthorough and the simulated opposition was effaced, for Ginoulhiac and\nKetteler were as positive as Kenrick or Hefele. But it was a point which\nRome could not surrender without giving up its whole position. To wait\nfor unanimity was to wait for ever, and to admit that a minority could\nprevent or nullify the dogmatic action of the papacy was to renounce\ninfallibility. No alternative remained to the opposing bishops but to\nbreak up the Council. The most eminent among them accepted this\nconclusion, and stated it in a paper declaring that the absolute and\nindisputable law of the Church had been violated by the Regulation\nallowing articles of faith to be decreed on which the episcopate was not\nmorally unanimous; and that the Council, no longer possessing in the\neyes of the bishops and of the world the indispensable condition of\nliberty and legality, would be inevitably rejected. To avert a public\nscandal, and to save the honour of the Holy See, it was proposed that\nsome unopposed decrees should be proclaimed in solemn session, and the\nCouncil immediately prorogued.\n\nAt the end of March a breach seemed unavoidable. The first part of the\ndogmatic decree had come back from the Commission so profoundly altered\nthat it was generally accepted by the bishops, but with a crudely\nexpressed sentence in the preamble, which was intended to rebuke the\nnotion of the reunion of Protestant Churches. Several bishops looked\nupon this passage as an uncalled-for insult to Protestants, and wished\nit changed; but there was danger that if they then joined in voting the\ndecree they would commit themselves to the lawfulness of the Regulation\nagainst which they had protested. On the 22nd of March Strossmayer\nraised both questions. He said that it was neither just nor charitable\nto impute the progress of religious error to the Protestants. The germ\nof modern unbelief existed among the Catholics before the Reformation,\nand afterwards bore its worst fruits in Catholic countries. Many of the\nablest defenders of Christian truth were Protestants, and the day of\nreconciliation would have come already but for the violence and\nuncharitableness of the Catholics. These words were greeted with\nexecrations, and the remainder of the speech was delivered in the midst\nof a furious tumult. At length, when Strossmayer declared that the\nCouncil had forfeited its authority by the rule which abolished the\nnecessity of unanimity, the Presidents and the multitude refused to let\nhim go on.[390] On the following day he drew up a protest, declaring\nthat he could not acknowledge the validity of the Council if dogmas were\nto be decided by a majority,[391] and sent it to the Presidents after it\nhad been approved at the meeting of the Germans, and by bishops of other\nnations. The preamble was withdrawn, and another was inserted in its\nplace, which had been written in great haste by the German Jesuit\nKleutgen, and was received with general applause. Several of the Jesuits\nobtained credit for the ability and moderation with which the decree was\ndrawn up. It was no less than a victory over extreme counsels. A\nunanimous vote was insured for the public session of 24th April; and\nharmony was restored. But the text proposed originally in the Pope's\nname had undergone so many changes as to make it appear that his\nintentions had been thwarted. There was a supplement to the decree,\nwhich the bishops had understood would be withdrawn, in order that the\nfestive concord and good feeling might not be disturbed. They were\ninformed at the last moment that it would be put to the vote, as its\nwithdrawal would be a confession of defeat for Rome. The supplement was\nan admonition that the constitutions and decrees of the Holy See must be\nobserved even when they proscribe opinions not actually heretical.[392]\nExtraordinary efforts were made in public and in private to prevent any\nopen expression of dissent from this paragraph. The Bishop of Brixen\nassured his brethren, in the name of the Commission, that it did not\nrefer to questions of doctrine, and they could not dispute the general\nprinciple that obedience is due to lawful authority. The converse\nproposition, that the papal acts have no claim to be obeyed, was\nobviously untenable. The decree was adopted unanimously. There were some\nwho gave their vote with a heavy heart, conscious of the snare.[393]\nStrossmayer alone stayed away.\n\nThe opposition was at an end. Archbishop Manning afterwards reminded\nthem that by this vote they had implicitly accepted infallibility. They\nhad done even more. They might conceivably contrive to bind and limit\ndogmatic infallibility with conditions so stringent as to evade many of\nthe objections taken from the examples of history; but, in requiring\nsubmission to papal decrees on matters not articles of faith, they were\napproving that of which they knew the character, they were confirming\nwithout let or question a power they saw in daily exercise, they were\ninvesting with new authority the existing Bulls, and giving unqualified\nsanction to the Inquisition and the Index, to the murder of heretics and\nthe deposing of kings. They approved what they were called on to reform,\nand solemnly blessed with their lips what their hearts knew to be\naccursed. The Court of Rome became thenceforth reckless in its scorn of\nthe opposition, and proceeded in the belief that there was no protest\nthey would not forget, no principle they would not betray, rather than\ndefy the Pope in his wrath. It was at once determined to bring on the\ndiscussion of the dogma of infallibility. At first, when the minority\nknew that their prayers and their sacrifices had been vain, and that\nthey must rely on their own resources, they took courage in extremity.\nRauscher, Schwarzenberg, Hefele, Ketteler, Kenrick, wrote pamphlets, or\ncaused them to be written, against the dogma, and circulated them in the\nCouncil. Several English bishops protested that the denial of\ninfallibility by the Catholic episcopate had been an essential condition\nof emancipation, and that they could not revoke that assurance after it\nhad served their purpose, without being dishonoured in the eyes of their\ncountrymen.[394] The Archbishop of St. Louis, admitting the force of the\nargument, derived from the fact that a dogma was promulgated in 1854\nwhich had long been disputed and denied, confessed that he could not\nprove the Immaculate Conception to be really an article of faith.[395]\n\nAn incident occurred in June which showed that the experience of the\nCouncil was working a change in the fundamental convictions of the\nbishops. Doellinger had written in March that an article of faith\nrequired not only to be approved and accepted unanimously by the\nCouncil, but that the bishops united with the Pope are not infallible,\nand that the oecumenicity of their acts must be acknowledged and\nratified by the whole Church. Father Hoetzl, a Franciscan friar, having\npublished a pamphlet in defence of this proposition, was summoned to\nRome, and required to sign a paper declaring that the confirmation of a\nCouncil by the Pope alone makes it oecumenical. He put his case into the\nhands of German bishops who were eminent in the opposition, asking first\ntheir opinion on the proposed declaration, and, secondly, their advice\non his own conduct. The bishops whom he consulted replied that they\nbelieved the declaration to be erroneous; but they added that they had\nonly lately arrived at the conviction, and had been shocked at first by\nDoellinger's doctrine. They could not require him to suffer the\nconsequences of being condemned at Rome as a rebellious friar and\nobstinate heretic for a view which they themselves had doubted only\nthree months before. He followed the advice, but he perceived that his\nadvisers had considerately betrayed him.\n\nWhen the observations on infallibility which the bishops had sent in to\nthe Commission appeared in print it seemed that the minority had burnt\ntheir ships. They affirmed that the dogma would put an end to the\nconversion of Protestants, that it would drive devout men out of the\nChurch and make Catholicism indefensible in controversy, that it would\ngive governments apparent reason to doubt the fidelity of Catholics, and\nwould give new authority to the theory of persecution and of the\ndeposing power. They testified that it was unknown in many parts of the\nChurch, and was denied by the Fathers, so that neither perpetuity nor\nuniversality could be pleaded in its favour; and they declared it an\nabsurd contradiction, founded on ignoble deceit, and incapable of being\nmade an article of faith by Pope or Council.[396] One bishop protested\nthat he would die rather than proclaim it. Another thought it would be\nan act of suicide for the Church.\n\nWhat was said, during the two months' debate, by men perpetually liable\nto be interrupted by a majority acting less from conviction than by\ncommand,[397] could be of no practical account, and served for protest,\nnot for persuasion. Apart from the immediate purpose of the discussion,\ntwo speeches were memorable--that of Archbishop Conolly of Halifax, for\nthe uncompromising clearness with which he appealed to Scripture and\nrepudiated all dogmas extracted from the speculations of divines, and\nnot distinctly founded on the recorded Word of God,[398] and that of\nArchbishop Darboy, who foretold that a decree which increased authority\nwithout increasing power, and claimed for one man, whose infallibility\nwas only now defined, the obedience which the world refused to the whole\nEpiscopate, whose right had been unquestioned in the Church for 1800\nyears, would raise up new hatred and new suspicion, weaken the influence\nof religion over society, and wreak swift ruin on the temporal\npower.[399]\n\nThe general debate had lasted three weeks, and forty-nine bishops were\nstill to speak, when it was brought to a close by an abrupt division on\nthe 3rd of June. For twenty-four hours the indignation of the minority\nwas strong. It was the last decisive opportunity for them to reject the\nlegitimacy of the Council. There were some who had despaired of it from\nthe beginning, and held that the Bull _Multiplices_ deprived it of legal\nvalidity. But it had not been possible to make a stand at a time when no\nman knew whether he could trust his neighbour, and when there was fair\nground to hope that the worst rules would be relaxed. When the second\nregulation, interpreted according to the interruptors of Strossmayer,\nclaimed the right of proclaiming dogmas which part of the Episcopate did\nnot believe, it became doubtful whether the bishops could continue to\nsit without implicit submission. They restricted themselves to a\nprotest, thinking that it was sufficient to meet words with words, and\nthat it would be time to act when the new principle was actually\napplied. By the vote of the 3rd of June the obnoxious regulation was\nenforced in a way evidently injurious to the minority and their cause.\nThe chiefs of the opposition were now convinced of the invalidity of the\nCouncil, and advised that they should all abstain from speaking, and\nattend at St. Peter's only to negative by their vote the decree which\nthey disapproved. In this way they thought that the claim to\noecumenicity would be abolished without breach or violence. The greater\nnumber were averse to so vigorous a demonstration; and Hefele threw the\ngreat weight of his authority into their scale. He contended that they\nwould be worse than their word if they proceeded to extremities on this\noccasion. They had announced that they would do it only to prevent the\npromulgation of a dogma which was opposed. If that were done the Council\nwould be revolutionary and tyrannical; and they ought to keep their\nstrongest measure in reserve for that last contingency. The principle\nof unanimity was fundamental. It admitted no ambiguity, and was so\nclear, simple, and decisive, that there was no risk in fixing on it. The\nArchbishops of Paris, Milan, Halifax, the Bishops of Djakovar, Orleans,\nMarseilles, and most of the Hungarians, yielded to these arguments, and\naccepted the policy of less strenuous colleagues, while retaining the\nopinion that the Council was of no authority. But there were some who\ndeemed it unworthy and inconsistent to attend an assembly which they had\nceased to respect.\n\nThe debate on the several paragraphs lasted till the beginning of July,\nand the decree passed at length with eighty-eight dissentient votes. It\nwas made known that the infallibility of the Pope would be promulgated\nin solemn session on the 18th, and that all who were present would be\nrequired to sign an act of submission. Some bishops of the minority\nthereupon proposed that they should all attend, repeat their vote, and\nrefuse their signature. They exhorted their brethren to set a\nconspicuous example of courage and fidelity, as the Catholic world would\nnot remain true to the faith if the bishops were believed to have\nfaltered. But it was certain that there were men amongst them who would\nrenounce their belief rather than incur the penalty of excommunication,\nwho preferred authority to proof, and accepted the Pope's declaration,\n\"La tradizione son' io.\" It was resolved by a small majority that the\nopposition should renew its negative vote in writing, and should leave\nRome in a body before the session. Some of the most conscientious and\nresolute adversaries of the dogma advised this course. Looking to the\nimmediate future, they were persuaded that an irresistible reaction was\nat hand, and that the decrees of the Vatican Council would fade away and\nbe dissolved by a power mightier than the Episcopate and a process less\nperilous than schism. Their disbelief in the validity of its work was so\nprofound that they were convinced that it would perish without violence,\nand they resolved to spare the Pope and themselves the indignity of a\nrupture. Their last manifesto, _La derniere Heure_, is an appeal for\npatience, an exhortation to rely on the guiding, healing hand of\nGod.[400] They deemed that they had assigned the course which was to\nsave the Church, by teaching the Catholics to reject a Council which was\nneither legitimate in constitution, free in action, nor unanimous in\ndoctrine, but to observe moderation in contesting an authority over\nwhich great catastrophes impend. They conceived that it would thus be\npossible to save the peace and unity of the Church without sacrifice of\nfaith and reason.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 370: _The North British Review_, October 1870.]\n\n[Footnote 371: Fidem mihi datam non servatam fuisse queror. Acta\nsupprimere, aut integra dare oportebat. He says also: Omnia ad nutum\ndelegati Apostolici fiebant.]\n\n[Footnote 372: Citra et contra singulorum suffragia, imo praeter et\nsupra omnium vota pontificis solius declarationi atque sententiae\nvalidam vim atque irreformabilem adesse potestatem.]\n\n[Footnote 373: Nous restons dans les doctrines de Bossuet parce que nous\nles croyons generalement vraies; nous les defendons parce qu'elles sont\nattaquees, et qu'un parti puissant veut les faire condamner. Ces\ndoctrines de l'episcopat francais, de l'ecole de Paris, de notre vieille\nSorbonne, se ramenent pour nous a trois propositions, a trois verites\nfondamentales: 1o l'Eglise est une monarchie efficacement temperee\nd'aristocracie; 2o la souverainete spirituelle est essentiellement\ncomposee de ces deux elements quoique le second soit subordonne au\npremier; 3o le concours de ces elements est necessaire pour etablir la\nregle absolue de la foi, c'est-a-dire, pour constituer l'acte par\nexcellence de la souverainete spirituelle.]\n\n[Footnote 374: Si hujus doctrinae memores fuissemus, haereticos seil cet\nnon esse infirmandos vel convincendos ex Scripturis, meliore sane loco\nessent res nostrae; sed dum ostentandi ingenii et eruditionis gratia cum\nLuthero in certamen descenditur Scripturarum, excitatum est hoc, quod,\nproh dolor! nunc videmus, incendium (Pighius).]\n\n[Footnote 375: Catholici non admondum solliciti sunt de critica et\nhermeneutica biblica ... Ipsi, ut verbo dicam, jam habent aedificium\nabsolutum sane ac perfectum, in cujus possessione firme ac secure\nconsistant.]\n\n[Footnote 376: Praxis Ecclesiae uno tempore interpretatur Scripturam uno\nmodo et alio tempore alio modo, nam intellectus currit cum\npraxi.--Mutato judicio Ecclesiaemutatum est Dei judicium.]\n\n[Footnote 377: Si viri ecclesiastici, sive in concilio oecumenico\ncongregati, sive seorsim scribentes, aliquod dogma vel unamquamque\nconsuetudinem uno ore ac diserte testantur ex traditione divina haberi,\nsine dubio certum argumentum est, uti ita esse credamus.--Ex testimonio\nhujus solius Ecclesiae sumi potest certum argumentum ad probandas\napostolicas traditiones (Bellarmine).]\n\n[Footnote 378: Veniae sive indulgentiae autoritate Scripturae nobis non\ninnotuere, sed autoritate ecclesiae Romanae Romanorumque Pontificum,\nquae major est.]\n\n[Footnote 379: Ego, ut ingenue fatear, plus uni summo pontifici\ncrederem, in his, quae fidei mysteria tangunt, quam mille Augustinis,\nHieronymis, Gregoriis (Cornelius Mussus).]\n\n[Footnote 380: The two views contradict each other; but they are equally\ncharacteristic of the endeavour to emancipate the Church from the\nobligation of proof. Fenelon says: \"Oseroit-on soutenir que l'Eglise\napres avoir mal raisonne sur tous les textes, et les avoir pris a\ncontre-sens, est tout a coup saisie par un enthousiasme aveugle, pour\njuger bien, en raisonnant mal?\" And Moehler: \"Die aeltesten oekumenischen\nSynoden fuehrten daher fuer ihre dogmatischen Beschluesse nicht einmal\nbestimmte biblische Stellen an; und die katholischen Theologen lehren\nmit allegingr Uebereinstimmung und ganz aus dem Geiste der Kirche\nheraus, dass selbst die biblische Beweisfuehrung eines fuer untrueglich\ngehaltenen Beschlusses nicht untrueglich sei, sondern eben nur das\nausgesprochene Dogma selbst.\"]\n\n[Footnote 381: Cujuscumque ergo scientiae, etiam historiae\necclesiasticae conclusiones, Romanorum Pontificum infallibiltati\nadversantes, quo manifestius haec ex revelationis fontibus infertur, eo\ncertius veluti totidem errores habendas esse consequitur.]\n\n[Footnote 382: Cum in professione fidei electi pontificis damnetur\nHonorius Papa, ideo quia pravis haereticorum assertionibus fomentum\nimpendit, si verba delineata sint vere in autographo, nec ex notis\napparere possit, quomodo huic vulneri medelam offerat, praestat non\ndivulgari opus.]\n\n[Footnote 383: That article condemns the following proposition: \"Romani\nPontifices et Concilia oecumenica a limitibus suae potestati\nrecesserunt, jura Principum usurparunt, atque etiam in rebus fidei et\nmorum definiendis errarunt.\"]\n\n[Footnote 384: J'en suis convaincu: a peine aurai-je touche la terre\nsacree, a peine aurai-je baise le tombeau des Apotres, que je me\nsentirai dans la paix, hors de la bataille, au sein d'une assemblee\npresidee par un Pere et composee de Freres. La, tous les bruits\nexpireront, toutes les ingerences temeraires cesseront, toutes les\nimprudences disparaitront, les flots et les vents seront apaises.]\n\n[Footnote 385: Vous admirez sans doute beaucoup l'eveque d'Orleans, mais\nvous l'admireriez bien plus encore, si vous pouviez vous figurer l'abime\nd'idolatrie ou est tombe le clerge francais. Cela depasse tout ce que\nl'on aurait jamais pu l'imaginer aux jours de ma jeunesse, au temps de\nFrayssinous et de La Mennais. Le pauvre Mgr. Maret, pour avoir expose\ndes idees tres moderees dans un langage plein d'urbanite et de charite,\nest traite publiquement dans les journaux soi-disant religieux\nd'heresiarque et d'apostat, par les derniers de nos cures. De tous les\nmysteres que presente en si grand nombre l'histoire de l'Eglise je n'en\nconnais pas qui egale ou depasse cette transformation si prompte et si\ncomplete de la France Catholique en une basse-cour de _l'anticamera du\nVatican_. J'en serais encore plus desespere qu'humilie, si la, comme\npartout dans les regions illuminees par la foi, la misericorde et\nl'esperance ne se laissaient entrevoir a travers les tenebres. \"C'est du\nRhin aujourd'hui que nous vient la lumiere.\" L'Allemagne a ete choisie\npour opposer une digue a ce torrent de fanatisme servile que menacait de\ntout englouter (Nov. 7, 1869).]\n\n[Footnote 386: Non solum ea quae ad scholas theologicas pertinent\nscholis relinquantur, sed etiam doctrinae quae a fidelibus pie tenentur\net coluntur, sine gravi causa in codicem dogmatum ne inferantur. In\nspecie ne Concilium declaret vel definiat infallibilitatem Summi\nPontificis, a doctissimis et prudentissimis fidelibus Sanctae sedi\nintime addictis, vehementer optatur. Gravia enim mala exinde oritura\ntiment tum fidelibus tum infidelibus. Fideles enim, qui Primatum\nmagisterii et jurisdictionis in Summo Pontifice ultro agnoscunt, quorum\npietas et obedientia erga Sanctam Sedem nullo certe tempore major fuit,\ncorde turbarentur magis quam erigerentur, ac si nunc demum fundamentum\nEcclesiae et verae doctrinae stabiliendum sit; infideles vero novam\ncalumniarum et derisionum materiam lucrarentur. Neque desunt, qui\nejusmodi definitionem logice impossibilem vocant.... Nostris diebus\ndefensio veritatis ac religionis tum praesertim efficax et fructuosa\nest, si sacerdotes a lege caeterorum civium minus recedunt, sed\ncommunibus omnium juribus utuntur, ita ut vis defensionis sit in\nveritate interna non per tutelam externae exemtionis.... Praesertim\nEcclesia se scientiarum, quae hominem ornant perficiuntque, amicam et\npatronam exhibeat, probe noscens, omne verum a Deo esse, et profunda ac\nseria literarum studia opitulari fidei.]\n\n[Footnote 387: Quid enim expedit damnare quae damnata jam sunt, quidve\njuvat errores proscribere quos novimus jam esse proscriptos?... Falsa\nsophistarum dogmata, veluti cineres a turbine venti evanuerunt,\ncorrupuerunt, fateor, permultos, infecerunt genium saeculi hujus, sed\nnumquid credendum est, corruptionis contaginem non contigisse, si\nejusmodi errores decretorum anathemate prostrati fuissent?... Pro tuenda\net tute servanda religione Catholica praeter gemitus et preces ad Deum\naliud medium praesidiumque nobis datum non est nisi Catholica scientia,\ncum recta fide per omnia concors. Excolitur summopere apud heterodoxos\nfidei inimica scientia, excolatur ergo oportet et omni opere augeatur\napud Catholicos vera scientia. Ecclesiae amica.... Obmutescere faciamus\nora obtrectantium qui falso nobis imputare non desistunt, Catholicam\nEcclesiam opprimere scientiam, et quemcumque liberum cogitandi modum ita\ncohibere, ut neque scientia, nec ulla alia animi libertas in ea\nsubsistere vel florescere possit.... Propterea monstrandum hoc est, et\nscriptis et factis manifestandum, in Catholica Ecclesia veram pro\npopulis esse libertatem, verum profectum, verum lumen, veramque\nprosperitatem.]\n\n[Footnote 388: Il n'y a au fond qu'une question devenue urgente et\ninevitable, dont la decision faciliterait le cours et la decision de\ntoutes les autres, dont le retard paralyse tout. Sans cela rien n'est\ncommence ni meme abordable (_Univers_, February 9).]\n\n[Footnote 389: Gratry had written: \"Cette apologetique sans franchise\nest l'une des causes de notre decadence religieuse depuis des\nsiecles.... Sommes-nous les predicateurs du mensonge ou les apotres de\nla verite? Le temps n'est-il pas venu de rejeter avec degout les\nfraudes, les interpolations, et les mutilations que les menteurs et les\nfaussaires, nos plus cruels ennemis, ont pu introduire parmi nous?\" The\nbishop wrote: \"Jamais parole plus puissante, inspiree par la conscience\net le savoir, n'est arrivee plus a propos que la votre.... Le mal est\ntel et le danger si effrayant que le silence deviendrait de la\ncomplicite.\"]\n\n[Footnote 390: Pace eruditissimorum virorum dictum esto: mihi haecce nec\nveritati congrua esse videntur, nec caritati. Non veritati; verum quidem\nest Protestantes gravissimam commisisse culpam, dum spreta et\ninsuperhabita divina Ecclesiae auctoritate, aeternas et immutabiles\nfidei veritates subjectivae rationis judicio et arbitrio subjecissent.\nHoc superbiae humanae fomentum gravissimis certe malis, rationalismo,\ncriticismo, etc. occasionem dedit. Ast hoc quoque respectu dici debet,\nprotestantismi ejus qui cum eodem in nexu existit rationalismi germen\nsaeculo xvi. praeextitisse in sic dicto humanismo et classicismo, quem\nin sanctuario ipso quidam summae auctoritatis viri incauto consilio\nfovebant et nutriebant; et nisi hoc germen praeextitisset concipi non\nposset quomodo tam parva scintilla tantum in medio Europae excitare\npotuisset incendium, ut illud ad hodiernum usque diem restingui non\npotuerit. Accedit et illud: fidei et religionis, Ecclesiae et omnis\nauctoritatis contemptum absque ulla cum Protestantismo cognatione et\nparentela in medio Catholicae gentis saeculo xviii. temporibus Voltarii\net encyclopaedistarum enatum fuisse.... Quidquid interim sit de\nrationalismo, puto venerabilem deputationem omnino falli dum texendo\ngenealogiam naturalismi, materialismi, pantheismi, atheismi, etc., omnes\nomnino hos errores foetus Protestantismi esse asserit.... Errores\nsuperius enumerati non tantum nobis verum et ipsis Protestantibus\nhorrori sunt et abominationi, ut adeo Ecclesiae et nobis Catholicis in\niis oppugnandis et refellendis auxilio sint et adjumento. Ita Leibnitius\nerat certe vir eruditus et omni sub respectu praestans; vir in\ndijudicandis Ecclesiae Catholicae institutis aequus; vir in debellandis\nsui temporis erroribus strenuus; vir in revehenda inter Christianas\ncommunitates concordia optime animatus et meritus. [Loud cries of \"Oh!\nOh!\" The President de Angelis rang the bell and said, \"Non est hicce\nlocus laudandi Protestantes.\"] ... Hos viros quorum magna copia existit\nin Germania, in Anglia, item et in America septentrionali, magna hominum\nturba inter Protestantes sequitur, quibus omnibus applicari potest illud\nmagni Augustini: \"Errant, sed bona fide errant; haeretici sunt, sed illi\nnos haereticos tenent. Ipsi errorem non invenerunt, sed a perversis et\nin errorem inductis parentibus haereditaverunt, parati errorem deponere\nquamprimum convicti fuerint.\" [Here there was a long interruption and\nringing of the bell, with cries of \"Shame! shame!\" \"Down with the\nheretic!\"] Hi omnes etiamsi non spectent ad Ecclesiae corpus, spectant\ntamen ad ejus animam, et de muneribus Redemptionis aliquatenus\nparticipant. Hi omnes in amore quo erga Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum\nferuntur, atque in illis positivis veritatibus quas ex fidei naufragio\nsalvarunt, totidem gratiae divinae momenta possident, quibus\nmisericordia Dei utetur, ut eos ad priscam fidem et Ecclesiam reducat,\nnisi nos exaggerationibus nostris et improvidis charitatis ipsis debitae\nlaesionibus tempus misericordiae divinae elongaverimus. Quantum autem ad\ncharitatem, ei certe contrarium est vulnera aliena alio fine tangere\nquam ut ipsa sanentur; puto autem hac enumeratione errorum, quibus\nProtestantismus occasionem dedisset, id non fieri.... Decreto, quod in\nsupplementum ordinis interioris nobis nuper communicatum est, statuitur\nres in Concilio hocce suffragiorum majoritate decidendas fore. Contra\nhoc principium, quod omnem praecedentium Conciliorum praxim funditus\nevertit, multi episcopi reclamarunt, quin tamen aliquod responsum\nobtinuerint. Responsum autem in re tanti momenti dari debuisset clarum,\nperspicuum et omnis ambiguitatis expers. Hoc ad summas Concilii hujus\ncalamitates spectat, nam hoc certe et praesenti generationi et posteris\npraebebit ansam dicendi: huic concilio libertatem et veritatem defuisse.\nEgo ipse convictus sum, aeternam ac immutabilem fidei et traditionis\nregulam semper fuisse semperque mansuram communem, adminus moraliter\nunanimem consensum. Concilium, quod hac regula insuperhabita, fidei et\nmorum dogmata majoritate numerica definire intenderet, juxta meam\nintimam convictionem eo ipso excideret jure conscientiam orbis Catholici\nsub sanctione vitae ac mortis aeternae obligandi.]\n\n[Footnote 391: Dum autem ipse die hesterno ex suggestu hanc quaestionem\nposuissem et verba deconsensu moraliter unanimi in rebus fidei\ndefiniendis necessario protulissem, interruptus fui, mihique inter\nmaximum tumultum et graves comminationes possibilitas sermonis\ncontinuandi adempta est. Atque haec gravissima sane circumstantia magis\nadhuc comprobat necessitatem habendi responsi, quod clarum sit omnisque\nambiguitatis expers. Peto itaque humillime, ut hujusmodi responsum in\nproxima congregatione generali detur. Nisi enim haec fierent anceps\nhaererem an manere possem in Concilio, ubi libertas Episcoporum ita\nopprimitur, quemadmodum heri in me oppressa fuit, et ubi dogmata fidei\ndefinirentur novo et in Ecclesia Dei adusque inaudito modo.]\n\n[Footnote 392: Quoniam vero satis non est, haereticam pravitatem\ndevitare, nisi ii quoque errores diligenter fugiantur, qui ad illam plus\nminusve accedunt, omnes officii monemus, servandi etiam Constitutiones\net Decreta quibus pravae eiusmodi opiniones, quae isthic diserte non\nenumerantur, ab hac Sancta Sede proscriptae et prohibitae sunt.]\n\n[Footnote 393: In the speech on infallibility which he prepared, but\nnever delivered. Archbishop Kenrick thus expressed himself: \"Inter alia\nquae mihi stuporem injecerunt dixit Westmonasteriensis, nos additamento\nfacto sub finem Decreti de Fide, tertia Sessione lati, ipsam Pontificiam\nInfallibilitatem, saltem implicite, jam agnovisse, nec ab ea recedere\nnunc nobis licere. Si bene intellexerim Rm Relatorem, qui in\nCongregatione generali hoc additamentum, prius oblatum, deinde\nabstractum, nobis mirantibus quid rei esset, illud iterum inopinato\ncommendavit--dixit, verbis clarioribus, per illud nullam omnino\ndoctrinam edoceri; sed earn quatuor capitibus ex quibus istud decretum\ncompositum est imponi tanquam eis coronidem convenientem; eamque\ndisciplinarem magis quam doctrinalem characterem habere. Aut deceptus\nest ipse, si vera dixit Westmonasteriensis; aut nos sciens in errorem\ninduxit, quod de viro tam ingenuo minime supponere licet. Utcumque\nfuerit, ejus declarationi fidentes, plures suffragia sua isti decreto\nhaud deneganda censuerunt ob istam clausulam; aliis, inter quos egomet,\ndoles parari metuentibus, et aliorum voluntati hac in re aegre\ncedentibus. In his omnibus non est mens mea aliquem ex Reverendissimis\nPatribus malae fidei incusare; quos omnes, ut par est, veneratione\ndebita prosequor. Sed extra concilium adesse dicuntur viri\nreligiosi--forsan et pii--qui maxime in illud influunt; qui calliditati\npotius quam bonis artibus confisi, rem Ecclesiae in maximum ex quo orta\nsit discrimen adduxerant; qui ab inito concilio effecerunt ut in\nDeputationes conciliares ii soli eligerentur qui eorum placitis fovere\naut noscerentur aut crederentur; qui nonnullorum ex eorum\npraedecessoribus vestigia prementes in schematibus nobis propositis, et\nex eorum officina prodeuntibus, nihil magis cordi habuisse videntur quam\nEpiscopalem auctoritatem deprimere, Pontificiam autem extollere; et\nverborum ambagibus incautos decipere velle videntur, dum alia ab aliis\nin eorum explicationem dicantur. Isti grave hoc incendium in Ecclesia\nexcitarunt, et in illud insufflare non desinunt, scriptis eorum,\npietatis speciem prae se ferentibus sed veritate ejus vacuis, in populos\nspargentibus.\"]\n\n[Footnote 394: The author of the protest afterwards gave the substance\nof his argument as follows: \"Episcopi et theologi publice a Parlamento\ninterrogati fuerunt, utrum Catholici Angliae tenerent Papam posse\ndefinitiones relativas ad fidem et mores populis imponere absque omni\nconsensu expresso vel tacito Ecclesiae. Omnes Episcopi et theologi\nresponderunt Catholicos hoc non tenere. Hisce responsionibus confisum\nParlamentum Angliae Catholicos admisit ad participationem iurium\ncivilium. Quis Protestantibus persuadebit Catholicos contra honorem et\nbonam fidem non agere, qui quando agebatur de iuribus sibi acquirendis\npublice professi sunt ad fidem Catholicam non pertinere doctrinam\ninfallibilitatis Romani Pontificis, statim autem ac obtinuerint quod\nvolebant, a professione publice facta recedunt et contrarium\naffirmant?\"]\n\n[Footnote 395: Archbishop Kenrick's remarkable statement is not\nreproduced accurately in his pamphlet _De Pontificia infallibilitate_.\nIt is given in full in the last pages of the _Observationes_, and is\nabridged in his _Concio habenda sed non habita_, where he concludes:\n\"Eam fidei doctrinam esse neganti, non video quomodo responderi possit,\ncum objiceret Ecclesiam errorem contra fidem divinitus revelatam diu\ntolerare non potuisse, quin, aut quod ad fidei depositum pertineret non\nscivisse, aut errorem manifestum tolerasse videretur.\"]\n\n[Footnote 396: Certissimum ipsi esse fore ut infallibilitate ista\ndogmatice definita, in dioecesi sua, in qua ne vestigium quidem\ntraditionis de infallibilitate S.P. hucusque inveniatur, et in aliis\nregionibus multi, et quidem non solum minoris, sed etiam optimae notae,\na fide deficiant.--Si edatur, omnis progressus conversionum in\nProvinciis Foederatis Americae funditus extinguetur. Episcopi et\nsacerdotes in disputationibus cum Protestantibus quid respondere possent\nnon haberent.--Per eiusmodi definitionem acatholicis, inter quos haud\npauci iique optimi hisce praesertim temporibus firmum fidei fundamentum\ndesiderant, ad Ecclesiam reditus redditur difficilis, imo\nimpossibilis.--Qui Concilii decretis obsequi vellent, invenient se\nmaximis in difficultatibus versari. Gubernia civilia eos tanquam\nsubditos minus fidos, haud sine verisimilitudinis specie, habebunt.\nHostes Ecclesiae eos lacessere non verebuntur, nunc eis objicientes\nerrores quos Pontifices aut docuisse, aut sua agendi ratione probasse,\ndicuntur et risu excipient responsa quae sola afferri possint.--Eo ipso\ndefinitur in globo quidquid per diplomata apostolica huc usque definitum\nest.... Poterit, admissa tali definitione, statuere de dominio\ntemporali, de eius mensura, de potestate deponendi reges, de usu\ncoercendi haereticos.--Doctrina de Infallibilitate Romani Pontificis nec\nin Scriptura Sacra, nec in traditione ecclesiastica fundata mihi\nvidetur. Immo contrarian., ni fallor, Christiana antiquitas tenuit\ndoctrinam.--Modus dicendi Schematis supponit existere in Ecclesia\nduplicem infallibilitatem, ipsius Ecclesiae et Romani Pontificis, quod\nest absurdum et inauditum.--Subterfugiis quibus theologi non pauci in\nHonorii causa usi sunt, derisui me exponerem. Sophismata adhibere et\nmunere episcopali et natura rei, quae in timore Domini pertractanda est,\nindignum mihi videtur.--Plerique textus quibus eam comprobant etiam\nmelioris notae theologi, quos Ultramontanos vocant, mutilati sunt,\nfalsificati, interpolati, circumtruncati, spurii, in sensum alienum\ndetorti.--Asserere audeo eam sententiam, ut in schemate jacet, non esse\nfidei doctrinam, nec talem devenire posse per quamcumque definitionem\netiam conciliarem.]\n\n[Footnote 397: This, at least, was the discouraging impression of\nArchbishop Kenrick: Semper contigit ut Patres surgendo assensum\nsententiae deputationis praebuerint. Primo quidem die suffragiorum, cum\nquaestio esset de tertia parte primae emendationis, nondum adhibita\nindicatione a subsecretario, deinde semper facta, plures surrexerunt\nadeo ut necesse foret numerum surgentium capere, ut constaret de\nsuffragiis. Magna deinde confusio exorta est, et ista emendatio, quamvis\nmajore forsan numero sic acceptata, in crastinum diem dilata est.\nPostero die Rms Relator ex ambone Patres monuit, deputationem\nemendationem istam admittere nolle. Omnes fere eam rejiciendam surgendo\nstatim dixerunt.]\n\n[Footnote 398: Quodcumque Dominus Noster non dixerit etiam si\nmetaphysice aut physice certissimum nunquam basis esse poterit dogmatis\ndivinae fidei. Fides enim per auditum, auditus autem non per scientiam\nsed per verba Christi.... Non ipsa verba S. Scripturae igitur, sed\ngenuinus sensus, sive litteralis, sive metaphoricus, prout in mente Dei\nrevelantis fuit, atque ab Ecclesiae patribus semper atque ubique\nconcorditer expositus, et quem nos omnes juramento sequi abstringimur,\nhic tantummodo sensus Vera Dei revelatio dicendus est.... Tota\nantiquitas silet vel contraria est.... Verbum Dei volo et hoc solum,\nquaeso et quidem indubitatum, ut dogma fiat.]\n\n[Footnote 399: Hanc de infallibilitate his conditionibus ortam et isto\nmodo introductam aggredi et definire non possumus, ut arbitror, quin eo\nipso tristem viam sternamus tum cavillationibus impiorum, tum etiam\nobjectionibus moralem hujus Concilii auctoritatem minuentibus. Et hoc\nquidem eo magis cavendum est, quod jam prostent et pervulgentur scripta\net acta quae vim ejus et rationem labefactare attentant; ita ut nedum\nanimos sedare queat et quae pacis sunt afferre, e contra nova\ndissensionis et discordiarum semina inter Christianos spargere\nvideatur.... Porro, quod in tantis Ecclesiae angustiis laboranti mundo\nremedium affertur? Iis omnibus qui ab humero indocili excutiunt onera\nantiquitus imposita, et consuetudine Patrum veneranda, novum ideoque\ngrave et odiosum onus imponi postulant schematis auctores. Eos omnes qui\ninfirmae fidei sunt novo et non satis opportuno dogmate quasi obruunt,\ndoctrina scilicet hucusque nondum definita, praesentis discussionis\nvulnere nonnihil sauciata, et a Concilio cujus libertatem minus aequo\napparere plurimi autumant et dicunt pronuntianda.... Mundus aut aeger\nest aut perit, non quod ignorat veritatem vel veritatis doctores, sed\nquod ab ea refugit eamque sibi non vult imperari. Igitur, si eam\nrespuit, quum a toto docentis Ecclesiae corpore, id est ab 800 episcopis\nper totum orbem sparsis et simul cum S. Pontifice infallibilibus\npraedicatur, quanto magis quum ab unico Doctore infallibili, et quidem\nut tali recenter declarato praedicabitur? Ex altera parte, ut valeat et\nefficaciter agat auctoritas necesse est non tantum eam affirmari, sed\ninsuper admitti.... Syllabus totam Europam pervasit at cui malo mederi\npotuit etiam ubi tanquam oraculum infallibile susceptus est? Duo tantum\nrestabant regna in quibus religio florebat, non de facto tantum, sed et\nde jure dominans: Austria scilicet et Hispania. Atqui in his duobus\nregnis ruit iste Catholicus ordo, quamvis ab infallibili auctoritate\ncommendatus, imo forsan saltem in Austria eo praecise quod ab hac\ncommendatus. Audeamus igitur res uti sunt considerare. Nedum Sanctissimi\nPontificis independens infallibilitas praejudicia et objectiones\ndestruat quae permultos a fide avertunt, ea potius auget et aggravat....\nNemo non videt si politicae gnarus, quae semina dissensionum schema\nnostrum contineat et quibus periculis exponatur ipsa temporalis Sanctae\nsedis potestas.]\n\n[Footnote 400: Esperons que l'exces du mal provoquera le retour du bien.\nCe Concile n'aura eu qu'un heureux resultat, celui d'en appeler un\nautre, reuni dans la liberte.... Le Concile du Vatican demeurera\nsterile, comme tout ce qui n'est pas eclos sous le souffle de l'Esprit\nSaint. Cependant il aura revele non seulement jusqu'a quel point\nl'absolutisme peut abuser des meilleures institutions et des meilleurs\ninstincts, mais aussi ce que vaut encore le droit, alors meme qu'il n'a\nplus que le petit nombre pour le defendre.... Si la multitude passe\nquand meme nous lui predisons qu'elle n'ira pas loin. Les Spartiates,\nqui etaient tombes aux Thermopyles pour defendre les terres de la\nliberte, avaient prepare au flot impitoyable au despotisme la defaite de\nSalamis.]\n\n\n\n\nXV\n\nA HISTORY OF THE INQUISITION OF THE MIDDLE AGES. By HENRY CHARLES\nLEA[401]\n\n\nA good many years ago, when Bishop Wilberforce was at Winchester, and\nthe Earl of Beaconsfield was a character in fiction, the bishop was\ninterested in the proposal to bring over the Utrecht Psalter. Mr.\nDisraeli thought the scheme absurd. \"Of course,\" he said, \"you won't get\nit.\" He was told that, nevertheless, such things are, that public\nmanuscripts had even been sent across the Atlantic in order that Mr. Lea\nmight write a history of the Inquisition. \"Yes,\" he replied, \"but they\nnever came back again.\" The work which has been awaited so long has come\nover at last, and will assuredly be accepted as the most important\ncontribution of the new world to the religious history of the old. Other\nbooks have shown the author as a thoughtful inquirer in the remunerative\nbut perilous region where religion and politics conflict, where ideas\nand institutions are as much considered as persons and events, and\nhistory is charged with all the elements of fixity, development, and\nchange. It is little to say, now, that he equals Buckle in the extent,\nand surpasses him in the intelligent choice and regulation, of his\nreading. He is armed at all points. His information is comprehensive,\nminute, exact, and everywhere sufficient, if not everywhere complete. In\nthis astonishing press of digested facts there is barely space to\ndiscuss the ideas which they exhibit and the law which they obey. M.\nMolinier lately wrote that a work with this scope and title \"serait, a\nnotre sens, une entreprise a peu pres chimerique.\" It will be\ninteresting to learn whether the opinion of so good a judge has been\naltered or confirmed.\n\nThe book begins with a survey of all that led to the growth of heresy,\nand to the creation, in the thirteenth century, of exceptional tribunals\nfor its suppression. There can be no doubt that this is the least\nsatisfactory portion of the whole. It is followed by a singularly\ncareful account of the steps, legislative and administrative, by which\nChurch and State combined to organise the intermediate institution, and\nof the manner in which its methods were formed by practice. Nothing in\nEuropean literature can compete with this, the centre and substance of\nMr. Lea's great history. In the remaining volumes he summons his\nwitnesses, calls on the nations to declare their experience, and tells\nhow the new force acted upon society to the end of the Middle Ages.\nHistory of this undefined and international cast, which shows the same\nwave breaking upon many shores, is always difficult, from the want of\nvisible unity and progression, and has seldom succeeded so well as in\nthis rich but unequal and disjointed narrative. On the most significant\nof all the trials, those of the Templars and of Hus, the author spends\nhis best research; and the strife between Avignon and the Franciscans,\nthanks to the propitious aid of Father Ehrle, is better still. Joan of\nArc prospers less than the disciples of Perfect Poverty; and after Joan\nof Arc many pages are allotted, rather profusely, to her companion in\narms, who survives in the disguise of Bluebeard. The series of\ndissolving scenes ends, in order of time, at Savonarola; and with that\nlimit the work is complete. The later Inquisition, starting with the\nSpanish and developing into the Roman, is not so much a prolongation or\na revival as a new creation. The mediaeval Inquisition strove to control\nstates, and was an engine of government. The modern strove to coerce the\nProtestants, and was an engine of war. One was subordinate, local,\nhaving a kind of headquarters in the house of Saint Dominic at Toulouse.\nThe other was sovereign, universal, centred in the Pope, and exercising\nits domination, not against obscure men without a literature, but\nagainst bishop and archbishop, nuncio and legate, primate and professor;\nagainst the general of the Capuchins and the imperial preacher; against\nthe first candidate in the conclave, and the president of the\noecumenical council. Under altered conditions, the rules varied and even\nprinciples were modified. Mr. Lea is slow to take counsel of the\nvoluminous moderns, fearing the confusion of dates. When he says that\nthe laws he is describing are technically still in force, he makes too\nlittle of a fundamental distinction. In the eye of the polemic, the\nmodern Inquisition eclipses its predecessor, and stops the way.\n\nThe origin of the Inquisition is the topic of a lasting controversy.\nAccording to common report, Innocent III. founded it, and made Saint\nDominic the first inquisitor; and this belief has been maintained by the\nDominicans against the Cistercians, and by the Jesuits against the\nDominicans themselves. They affirm that the saint, having done his work\nin Languedoc, pursued it in Lombardy: \"Per civitates et castella\nLombardiae circuibat, praedicans et evangelizans regnum Dei, atque\ncontra haereticos inquirens, quos ex odore et aspectu dignoscens,\ncondignis suppliciis puniebat\" (Fontana, _Monumenta Dominicana_, 16). He\ntransferred his powers to Fra Moneta, the brother in whose bed he died,\nand who is notable as having studied more seriously than any other\ndivine the system which he assailed: \"Vicarium suum in munere\ninquisitionis delegerat dilectissimum sibi B. Monetam, qui spiritu\nillius loricatus, tanquam leo rugiens contra haereticos surrexit....\nIniquos cum haereticos ex corde insectaretur, illisque nullo modo\nparceret, sed igne ac ferro consumeret.\" Moneta is succeeded by Guala,\nwho brings us down to historic times, when the Inquisition flourished\nundisputed: \"Facta promotione Guallae constitutus est in eius locum\ngeneralis inquisitor P.F. Guidottus de Sexto, a Gregorio Papa IX., qui\ninnumeros propemodum haereticos igne consumpsit\" (Fontana, _Sacrum\nTheatrum Dominicanum_, 595). Sicilian inquisitors produce an imperial\nprivilege of December 1224, which shows the tribunal in full action\nunder Honorius III.: \"Sub nostrae indignationis fulmine praesenti edicto\ndistrictius praecipiendo mandamus, quatenus inquisitoribus haereticae\npravitatis, ut suum libere officium prosequi et exercere valeant, prout\ndecet, omne quod potestis impendatis auxilium\" (Franchina, _Inquisizione\ndi Sicilia_, 1774, 8). This document may be a forgery of the fifteenth\ncentury; but the whole of the Dominican version is dismissed by Mr. Lea\nwith contempt. He has heard that their founder once rescued a heretic\nfrom the flames; \"but Dominic's project only looked to their peaceful\nconversion, and to performing the duties of instruction and\nexhortation.\" Nothing is better authenticated in the life of the saint\nthan the fact that he condemned heretics and exercised the right of\ndeciding which of them should suffer and which should be spared.\n\"Contigit quosdam haereticos captos et per eum convictos, cum redire\nnollent ad fidem catholicam, tradi judicio saeculari. Cumque essent\nincendio deputati, aspiciens inter alios quemdam Raymundum de Grossi\nnomine, ac si aliquem eo divinae praedestinationis radium fuisset\nintuitus, istum, inquit officialibus curiae, reservate, nec aliquo modo\ncum caeteris comburatur\" (Constantinus, _Vita S. Dominici_; Echard,\n_Scriptores O.P._, 1. 33). The transaction is memorable in Dominican\nannals as the one link distinctly connecting Saint Dominic with the\nsystem of executions, and the only security possessed by the order that\nthe most conspicuous of its actions is sanctioned by the spirit and\nexample of the founder. The original authorities record it, and it is\ncommemorated by Bzovius and Malvenda, by Fontana and Percin, by Echard\nand Mamachi, as well as in the _Acta Sanctorum_. Those are exactly the\nauthors to whom in the first instance a man betakes himself who desires\nto understand the inception and early growth of the Inquisition. I\ncannot remember that any one of them appears in Mr. Lea's notes. He says\nindeed that Saint Dominic's inquisitorial activity \"is affirmed by all\nthe historians of the order,\" and he is a workman who knows his tools so\nwell that we may hesitate to impute this grave omission to\ninacquaintance with necessary literature. It is one of his\ncharacteristics to be suspicious of the _Histoire Intime_ as the seat of\nfable and proper domain of those problems in psychology against which\nthe certitude of history is always going to pieces. Where motives are\nobscure, he prefers to contemplate causes in their effects, and to look\nabroad over his vast horizon of unquestioned reality. The difference\nbetween outward and interior history will be felt by any one who\ncompares the story of Dolcino here given with the account in Neander.\nMr. Lea knows more about him and has better materials than the ponderous\nprofessor of pectoral theology. But he has not all Neander's patience\nand power to read significance and sense in the musings of a reckless\nerratic mind.\n\nHe believes that Pope Gregory IX. is the intellectual originator, as\nwell as the legislative imponent, of the terrific system which ripened\ngradually and experimentally in his pontificate. It does not appear\nwhether he has read, or knows through Havet the investigations which\nconducted Ficker to a different hypothesis. The transition of 1231 from\nthe saving of life to the taking of life by fire was nearly the sharpest\nthat men can conceive, and in pursuance of it the subsequent legal forms\nare mere detail. The spirit and practice of centuries were renounced for\nthe opposite extreme; and between the mercy of 1230 and the severity of\n1231 there was no intervening stage of graduated rigour. Therefore it is\nprobable that the new idea of duty, foreign to Italian and specifically\nto Roman ways, was conveyed by a new man, that a new influence just then\ngot possession of the Pope. Professor Ficker signals Guala as the real\ncontriver of the _regime_ of terror, and the man who acquired the\ninfluence imported the idea and directed the policy. Guala was a\nDominican prior whom the Pope trusted in emergencies. In the year 1230\nhe negotiated the treaty of San Germano between Frederic II. and the\nChurch, and was made Bishop of Brescia. In that year Brescia, first\namong Italian cities, inserted in its statutes the emperor's Lombard law\nof 1224, which sent the heretic to the stake. The inference is that the\nDominican prelate caused its insertion, and that nobody is so likely to\nhave expounded its available purport to the pontiff as the man who had\nso lately caused it to be adopted in his own see, and who stood high\njust then in merit and in favour. That Guala was bishop-elect on 28th\nAugust, half a year before the first burnings at Rome, we know; that he\ncaused the adoption of Frederic's law at Brescia or at Rome is not in\nevidence. Of that abrupt and unexplained enactment little is told us,\nbut this we are told, that it was inspired by Honorius: \"Leges quoque\nimperiales per quondam Fredericum olim Romanorum imperatorem, tunc in\ndevotione Romane sedis persistentem, procurante eadem sede, fuerunt\nedite et Padue promulgate\" (Bern. Guidonis, _Practica Inquisitionis_,\n173). At any rate, Gregory, who had seen most things since the elevation\nof Innocent, knew how Montfort dealt with Albigensian prisoners at\nMinerve and Lavaur, what penalties were in store at Toulouse, and on\nwhat principles Master Conrad administered in Germany the powers\nreceived from Rome. The Papacy which inspired the coronation laws of\n1220, in which there is no mention of capital punishment, could not have\nbeen unobservant of the way in which its own provisions were\ntransformed; and Gregory, whom Honorius had already called \"magnum et\nspeciale ecclesie Romane membrum,\" who had required the university of\nBologna to adopt and to expound the new legislation, and who knew the\nArchbishop of Magdeburg, had little to learn from Guala about the\nformidable weapon supplied to that prelate for the government of\nLombardy. There is room for further conjecture.\n\nIn those days it was discovered that Arragon was infested with heresy;\nand the king's confessor proposed that the Holy See be applied to for\nmeans of active suppression. With that object, in 1230 he was sent to\nRome. The envoy's name was Raymond, and his home was on the coast of\nCatalonia in the town of Pennaforte. He was a Bolognese jurist, a\nDominican, and the author of the most celebrated treatise on morals made\npublic in the generation preceding the scholastic theology. The five\nyears of his abode in Rome changed the face of the Church. He won the\nconfidence of Gregory, became penitentiary, and was employed to codify\nthe acts of the popes militant since the publication of Gratian. Very\nsoon after Saint Raymond appeared at the papal court, the use of the\nstake became law, the inquisitorial machinery had been devised, and the\nmanagement given to the priors of the order. When he departed he left\nbehind him instructions for the treatment of heresy, which the pope\nadopted and sent out where they were wanted. He refused a mitre, rose to\nbe general, it is said in opposition to Albertus Magnus, and retired\nearly, to become, in his own country, the oracle of councils on the\nwatch for heterodoxy. Until he came, in spite of much violence and many\nlaws, the popes had imagined no permanent security against religious\nerror, and were not formally committed to death by burning. Gregory\nhimself, excelling all the priesthood in vigour and experience, had for\nfour years laboured, vaguely and in vain, with the transmitted\nimplements. Of a sudden, in three successive measures, he finds his way,\nand builds up the institution which is to last for centuries. That this\nmighty change in the conditions of religious thought and life and in the\nfunctions of the order was suggested by Dominicans is probable. And it\nis reasonable to suppose that it was the work of the foremost Dominican\nthen living, who at that very moment had risen to power and predominance\nat Rome.\n\nNo sane observer will allow himself to overdraw the influence of\nnational character on events. Yet there was that in the energetic race\nthat dwell with the Pyrenees above them and the Ebro below that suited a\nleading part in the business of organised persecution. They are among\nthe nations that have been inventors in politics, and both the\nconstitution of Arragon and that of the society of Jesus prove their\nconstructive science. While people in other lands were feeling their\nway, doubtful and debonair, Arragon went straight to the end. Before the\nfirst persecuting pope was elected, before the Child of Apulia, who was\nto be the first persecuting emperor, was born, Alfonso proscribed the\nheretics. King and clergy were in such accord that three years later the\ncouncil of Girona decreed that they might be beaten while they remained,\nand should be burnt if they came back. It was under this government,\namid these surroundings, that Saint Dominic grew up, whom Sixtus V.,\nspeaking on authority which we do not possess, entitled the First\nInquisitor. Saint Raymond, who had more to do with it than Saint\nDominic, was his countryman. Eymerici, whose _Directorium_ was the best\nauthority until the _Practica_ of Guidonis appeared, presided during\nforty years over the Arragonese tribunal; and his commentator Pegna, the\nCoke upon Littleton of inquisitorial jurisprudence, came from the same\nstern region.\n\nThe _Histoire Generale de Languedoc_ in its new shape has supplied Mr.\nLea with so good a basis that his obligations to the present editors\nbring him into something like dependence on French scholarship. He\ndesignates monarchs by the names they bear in France--Louis le\nGermanique, Charles le Sage, Philippe le Bon, and even Philippe; and\nthis habit, with Foulques and Berenger of Tours, with Aretino for\nArezzo, Oldenburg for Altenburg, Torgau for Zuerich, imparts an exotic\nflavour which would be harmless but for a surviving preference for\nFrench books. Compared with Bouquet and Vaissete, he is unfamiliar with\nBoehmer and Pertz. For Matthew Paris he gets little or no help from Coxe,\nor Madden, or Luard, or Liebermann, or Huillard. In France few things of\nimportance have escaped him. His account of Marguerite Porrette differs\nfrom that given by Haureau in the _Histoire Litteraire_, and the\ndifference is left unexplained. No man can write about Joan of Arc\nwithout suspicion who discards the publications of Quicherat, and even\nof Wallon, Beaucourt, and Luce. Etienne de Bourbon was an inquisitor of\nlong experience, who knew the original comrade and assistant of Waldus.\nFragments of him scattered up and down in the works of learned men have\ncaught the author's eye; but it is uncertain how much he knows of the\nfifty pages from Stephanus printed in Echard's book on Saint Thomas, or\nof the volume in which Lecoy de la Marche has collected all, and more\nthan all, that deserves to live of his writings. The \"Historia\nPontificalis,\" attributed to John of Salisbury, in the twentieth volume\nof the _Monumenta_, should affect the account of Arnold of Brescia. The\nanalogy with the Waldenses, amongst whom his party seems to have merged,\nmight be more strongly marked. \"Hominum sectam fecit que adhuc dicitur\nheresis Lumbardorum.... Episcopis non parcebat ob avariciam et turpem\nquestum, et plerumque propter maculam vite, et quia ecclesiam Dei in\nsanguinibus edificare nituntur.\" He was excommunicated and declared a\nheretic. He was reconciled and forgiven. Therefore, when he resumed his\nagitation his portion was with the obstinate and relapsed. \"Ei populus\nRomanus vicissim auxilium et consilium contra omnes homines et nominatim\ncontra domnum papam repromisit, eum namque excommunicaverat ecclesia\nRomana.... Post mortem domni Innocentii reversus est in Italiam, et\npromissa satisfactione et obediencia Romane ecclesie, a domno Eugenio\nreceptus est apud Viterbum.\" And it is more likely that the fear of\nrelics caused them to reduce his body to ashes than merely to throw the\nashes into the Tiber.\n\nThe energy with which Mr. Lea beats up information is extraordinary even\nwhen imperfectly economised. He justly makes ample use of the _Vitae\nPaparum Avenionensium_, which he takes apparently from the papal volume\nof Muratori. These biographies were edited by Baluze, with notes and\ndocuments of such value that Avignon without him is like Athenaeus\nwithout Casaubon, or the Theodosian Code without Godefroy. But if he\nneglects him in print, he constantly quotes a certain Paris manuscript\nin which I think I recognise the very one which Baluze employed.\nTogether with Guidonis and Eymerici, the leading authority of the\nfourteenth century is Zanchini, who became an inquisitor at Rimini in\n1300, and died in 1340. His book was published with a commentary by\nCampeggio, one of the Tridentine fathers; and Campeggio was further\nannotated by Simancas, who exposes the disparity between Italian and\nSpanish usage. It was reprinted, with other treatises of the same kind,\nin the eleventh volume of the _Tractatus_. Some of these treatises, and\nthe notes of Campeggio and Simancas, are passed over by Mr. Lea without\nnotice. But he appreciates Zanchini so well that he has had him copied\nfrom a manuscript in France. Very much against his habit, he prints one\nentire sentence, from which it appears that his copy does not agree to\nthe letter with the published text. It is not clear in every case\nwhether he is using print or manuscript. One of the most interesting\ndirections for inquisitors, and one of the earliest, was written by\nCardinal Fulcodius, better known as Clement IV. Mr. Lea cites him a\ndozen times, always accurately, always telling us scrupulously which of\nthe fifteen chapters to consult. The treatise of Fulcodius occupies a\nfew pages in Carena, _De Officio S.S. Inquisitionis_, in which, besides\nother valuable matter, there are notes by Carena himself, and a tract by\nPegna, the perpetual commentator of the Inquisition. This is one of the\nfirst eight or ten books which occur to any one whose duty it is to lay\nin an inquisitor's library. Not only we are never told where to find\nFulcodius, but when Carena is mentioned it is so done as to defy\nverification. Inartistic references are not, in this instance, a token\nof inadequate study. But a book designed only for readers who know at a\nglance where to lay their finger on _S. Francis. Collat. Monasticae,\nCollat. 20_, or _Post constt. IV. XIX. Cod. I. v._ will be slow in\nrecovering outlay.\n\nNot his acquaintance with rare books only, which might be the curiosity\nof an epicurean, but with the right and appropriate book, amazes the\nreader. Like most things attributed to Abbot Joachim, the Vaticinia\nPontificum is a volume not in common use, and decent people may be found\nwho never saw a copy. Mr. Lea says: \"I have met with editions of Venice\nissued in 1589, 1600, 1605, and 1646, of Ferrara in 1591, of Frankfort\nin 1608, of Padua in 1625, and of Naples in 1660, and there are\ndoubtless numerous others.\" This is the general level throughout; the\nrare failures disappear in the imposing supererogation of knowledge. It\ncould not be exceeded by the pupils of the Goettingen seminary or the\nEcole des Chartes. They have sometimes a vicious practice of overtopping\nsufficient proof with irrelevant testimony: but they transcribe all\ndeciding words in full, and for the rest, quicken and abridge our toil\nby sending us, not to chapter and verse, but to volume and page, of the\nphysical and concrete book. We would gladly give Bluebeard and his\nwife--he had but one after all--in exchange for the best quotations from\nsources hard of access which Mr. Lea must have hoarded in the course of\nlabours such as no man ever achieved before him, or will ever attempt\nhereafter. It would increase the usefulness of his volumes, and double\ntheir authority. There are indeed fifty pages of documentary matter not\nentirely new or very closely connected with the text. Portions of this,\nbesides, are derived from manuscripts explored in France and Italy, but\nnot it seems in Rome, and in this way much curious and valuable material\nunderlies the pages; but it is buried without opportunity of display or\nscrutiny. Line upon line of references to the Neapolitan archives only\nbewilder and exasperate. Mr. Lea, who dealt more generously with the\nreaders of _Sacerdotal Celibacy_, has refused himself in these\novercrowded volumes that protection against overstatement. The want of\nverifiable indication of authorities is annoying, especially at first;\nand it may be possible to find one or two references to Saint\nBonaventure or to Wattenbach which are incorrect. But he is exceedingly\ncareful in rendering the sense of his informants, and neither strains\nthe tether nor outsteps his guide. The original words in very many cases\nwould add definiteness and a touch of surprise to his narrative.\n\nIf there is anywhere the least infidelity in the statement of an\nauthor's meaning, it is in the denial that Marsilius, the imperial\ntheorist, and the creator with Ockam of the Ghibelline philosophy that\nhas ruled the world, was a friend of religious liberty. Marsilius\nassuredly was not a Whig. Quite as much as any Guelph, he desired to\nconcentrate power, not to limit or divide it. Of the sacred immunities\nof conscience he had no clearer vision than Dante. But he opposed\npersecution in the shape in which he knew it, and the patriarchs of\nEuropean emancipation have not done more. He never says that there is no\ncase in which a religion may be proscribed; but he speaks of none in\nwhich a religion may be imposed. He discusses, not intolerance, but the\ndivine authority to persecute, and pleads for a secular law. It does not\nappear how he would deal with a Thug. \"Nemo quantumcumque peccans contra\ndisciplinas speculativas aut operativas quascumque punitur vel arcetur\nin hoc saeculo praecise in quantum huiusmodi, sed in quantum peccat\ncontra praeceptum humanae legis.... Si humana lege prohibitum fuerit\nhaereticum aut aliter infidelem in regione manere, qui talis in ipsa\nrepertus fuerit, tanquam legis humanae transgressor, poena vel supplicio\nhuic transgressioni eadem lege statutis, in hoc saeculo debet arceri.\"\nThe difference is slight between the two readings. One asserts that\nMarsilius was tolerant in effect; the other denies that he was tolerant\nin principle.\n\nMr. Lea does not love to recognise the existence of much traditional\ntoleration. Few lights are allowed to deepen his shadows. If a stream of\ntolerant thought descended from the early ages to the time when the\ncompanion of Vespucci brought his improbable tale from Utopia, then the\nviews of Bacon, of Dante, of Gerson cannot be accounted for by the\nascendency of a unanimous persuasion. It is because all men were born to\nthe same inheritance of enforced conformity that we glide so easily\ntowards the studied increase of pain. If some men were able to perceive\nwhat lay in the other scale, if they made a free choice, after\ndeliberation, between well-defined and well-argued opinions, then what\nhappened is not assignable to invincible causes, and history must turn\nfrom general and easy explanation to track the sinuosities of a tangled\nthread. In Mr. Lea's acceptation of ecclesiastical history intolerance\nwas handed down as a rule of life from the days of St. Cyprian, and the\nfew who shrank half-hearted from the gallows and the flames were\nexceptions, were men navigating craft of their own away from the track\nof St. Peter. Even in his own age he is not careful to show that the\nWaldenses opposed persecution, not in self-defence, but in the necessary\nsequence of thought. And when he describes Eutychius as an obscure man,\nwho made a point at the fifth general council, for which he was rewarded\nwith the patriarchate of Constantinople--Eutychius, who was already\npatriarch when the council assembled; and when he twice tears Formosus\nfrom his grave to parade him in his vestments about Rome,--we may\nsuspect that the perfect grasp of documentary history from the twelfth\ncentury does not reach backwards in a like degree.\n\nIf Mr. Lea stands aloft, in his own domain, as an accumulator, his\ncredit as a judge of testimony is nearly as high. The deciding test of\nhis critical sagacity is the masterly treatment of the case against the\nTemplars. They were condemned without mercy, by Church and State, by\npriest and jurist, and down to the present day cautious examiners of\nevidence, like Prutz and Lavocat, give a faltering verdict. In the face\nof many credulous forerunners and of much concurrent testimony Mr. Lea\npronounces positively that the monster trial was a conspiracy to murder,\nand every adverse proof a lie. His immediate predecessor, Schottmueller,\nthe first writer who ever knew the facts, has made this conclusion easy.\nBut the American does not move in the retinue of the Prussian scholar.\nHe searches and judges for himself; and in his estimate of the chief\nactor in the tragedy, Clement V., he judges differently. He rejects, as\nforgeries, a whole batch of unpublished confessions, and he points out\nthat a bull disliked by inquisitors is not reproduced entire in the\n_Bullarium Dominicanum_. But he fails to give the collation, and is\ngenerally jealous about admitting readers to his confidence, taking them\ninto consultation and producing the scales. In the case of Delicieux,\nwhich nearly closes the drama of Languedoc, he consults his own sources,\nindependently of Haureau, and in the end adopts the marginal statement\nin Limborch, that the pope aggravated the punishment. In other places,\nhe puts his trust in the _Historia Tribulationum_, and he shows no\nreason for dismissing the different account there given of the death of\nDelicieux: \"Ipsum fratrem Bernardum sibi dari a summo pontifice\npetierunt. Et videns summus pontifex quod secundum accusationes quas de\neo fecerant fratres minores justitiam postularent, tradidit eis eum.\nQui, quum suscepissent eum in sua potestate, sicut canes, cum vehementer\nfuriunt, lacerant quam capiunt bestiam, ita ipsi diversis afflictionibus\net cruciatibus laniaverunt eum. Et videntes quod neque inquisitionibus\nnec tormentis poterant pompam de eo facere in populo, quam quaerebant,\nin arctissimo carcere eum reduxerunt, ibidem eum taliter tractantes,\nquod infra paucos menses, quasi per ignem et aquam transiens, de carcere\ncorporis et minorum et praedicatorum liberatus gloriose triumphans de\nmundi principe, migravit ad coelos.\"\n\nWe obtain only a general assurance that the fate of Cecco d' Ascoli is\nrelated on the strength of unpublished documents at Florence. It is not\nstated what they are. There is no mention of the epitaph pronounced by\nthe pope who had made him his physician: \"Cucullati Minores recentiorum\nPeripateticorum principem perdiderunt.\" We do not learn that Cecco\nreproached Dante with the same fatalistic leaning for which he himself\nwas to die: \"Non e fortuna cui ragion non vinca.\" Or how they disputed:\n\"An ars natura fortior ac potentior existeret,\" and argument was\nsupplanted by experiment: \"Aligherius, qui opinionem oppositam mordicus\ntuebatur, felem domesticam Stabili objiciebat, quam ea arte instituerat,\nut ungulis candelabrum teneret, dum is noctu legeret, vel coenaret.\nCicchius igitur, ut in sententiam suam Aligherium pertraheret, scutula\nassumpta, ubi duo musculi asservabantur inclusi, illos in conspectum\nfelis dimisit; quae naturae ingenio inemendabili obsequens, muribus vix\ninspectis, illico in terram candelabrum abjecit, et ultro citroque\ncursare ac vestigiis praedam persequi instituit.\" Either Appiani's\ndefence of Cecco d' Ascoli has escaped Mr. Lea, who nowhere mentions\nBernino's _Historia di tutte l' Heresie_ where it is printed; or he may\ndistrust Bernino for calling Dante a schismatic; or it may be that he\nrejects all this as legend, beneath the certainty of history. But he\ndoes not disdain the legendary narrative of the execution: \"Tradition\nrelates that he had learned by his art that he should die between Africa\nand Campo Fiore, and so sure was he of this that on the way to the stake\nhe mocked and ridiculed his guards; but when the pile was about to be\nlighted he asked whether there was any place named Africa in the\nvicinage, and was told that that was the name of a neighbouring brook\nflowing from Fiesole to the Arno. Then he recognised that Florence was\nthe Field of Flowers, and that he had been miserably deceived.\" The\nFlorentine document before me, whether the same or another I know not,\nsays nothing about untimely mockery or miserable deception: \"Aveva\ninteso dal demonio dover lui morire di morte accidentale infra l'Affrica\ne campo di fiore; per lo che cercando di conservare la reputazione sua,\nordino di non andar mai nelle parti d'Affrica; e credendo tal fallacia e\ndi potere sbeffare la gente, pubblicamente in Italia esecutava l'arte\ndella negromanzia, et essendo per questo preso in Firenze e per la sua\nconfessione essendo gia giudicato al fuoco e legato al palo, ne vedendo\nalcun segno della sua liberazione, avendo prima fatto i soliti\nscongiuri, domando alle persone che erano all'intorno, se quivi vicino\nera alcun luogo che si chiamasse Affrica, et essendogli risposto di si,\ncioe un fiumicello che correva ivi presso, il quale discende da Fiesole\ned e chiamato Affrica, considerando che il demonio per lo campo de'\nfiori aveva inteso Fiorenza, e per l'Affrica quel fiumicello, ostinato\nnella sua perfidia, disse al manigoldo che quanto prima attaccasse il\nfuoco.\"\n\nMr. Lea thinks that the untenable conditions offered to the count of\nToulouse by the council of Arles in 1211 are spurious. M. Paul Meyer has\nassigned reasons on the other side in his notes to the translation of\nthe _Chanson de la Croisade_, pp. 75-77; and the editors of Vaissete\n(vi. 347) are of the same opinion as M. Paul Meyer. It happens that Mr.\nLea reads the _Chanson_ in the _editio princeps_ of Fauriel; and in this\nparticular place he cites the _Histoire du Languedoc_ in the old and\nsuperseded edition. From a letter lately brought to light in the\n_Archiv fuer Geschichte des Mittelalters_, he infers that the decree of\nClement V. affecting the privilege of inquisitors was tampered with\nbefore publication. A Franciscan writes from Avignon when the new canons\nwere ready: \"Inquisitores etiam heretice pravitatis restinguuntur et\nsupponuntur episcopis\"--which he thinks would argue something much more\ndecisive than the regulations as they finally appeared. Ehrle, who\npublishes the letter, remarks that the writer exaggerated the import of\nthe intended change; but he says it not of this sentence, but of the\nnext preceding. Mr. Lea has acknowledged elsewhere the gravity of this\nClementine reform. As it stands, it was considered injurious by\ninquisitors, and elicited repeated protests from Bernardus Guidonis: \"Ex\npredicta autem ordinatione seu restrictione nonnulla inconvenientia\nconsecuntur, que liberum et expeditum cursum officii inquisitoris tam in\nmanibus dyocesanorum quam etiam inquisitorum diminuunt seu retardant....\nQue apostolice sedis circumspecta provisione ac provida circumspectione\nindigent, ut remedientur, aut moderentur in melius, seu pocius totaliter\nsuspendantur propter nonnulla inconvenientia que consecuntur ex ipsis\ncirca liberum et expeditum cursum officii inquisitoris.\"\n\nThe feudal custom which supplied Beaumarchais with the argument of his\nplay recruits a stout believer in the historian of the Inquisition, who\nassures us that the authorities may be found on a certain page of his\n_Sacerdotal Celibacy_. There, however, they may be sought in vain. Some\ndubious instances are mentioned, and the dissatisfied inquirer is passed\non to the Fors de Bearn, and to Lagreze, and is informed that M. Louis\nVeuillot raised an unprofitable dust upon the subject. I remember that\nM. Veuillot, in his boastful scorn for book learning, made no secret\nthat he took up the cause because the Church was attacked, but got his\nfacts from somebody else. Graver men than Veuillot have shared his\nconclusion. Sir Henry Maine, having looked into the matter in his quick,\ndecisive way, declared that an instance of the _droit du seigneur_ was\nas rare as the Wandering Jew. In resting his case on the Pyrenees, Mr.\nLea shows his usual judgment. But his very confident note is a too easy\nand contemptuous way of settling a controversy which is still wearily\nextant from Spain to Silesia, in which some new fact comes to light\nevery year, and drops into obscurity, riddled with the shafts of\ncritics.\n\nAn instance of too facile use of authorities occurs at the siege of\nBeziers. \"A fervent Cistercian contemporary informs us that when Arnaud\nwas asked whether the Catholics should be spared, he feared the heretics\nwould escape by feigning orthodoxy, and fiercely replied, 'Kill them\nall, for God knows his own.'\" Caesarius, to whom we owe the _locus\nclassicus_, was a Cistercian and a contemporary, but he was not so\nfervent as that, for he tells it as a report, not as a fact, with a\ncaution which ought not to have evaporated. \"Fertur dixisse: Caedite\neos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius!\" The Catholic defenders had been\nsummoned to separate from the Cathari, and had replied that they were\ndetermined to share their fate. It was then resolved to make an example,\nwhich we are assured bore fruit afterwards. The hasty zeal of Citeaux\nadopted the speech of the abbot and gave it currency. But its rejection\nby the French scholars, Tamizey de Larroque and Auguste Molinier, was a\nwarning against presenting it with a smooth surface, as a thing tested\nand ascertained. Mr. Lea, in other passages, has shown his disbelief in\nCaesarius of Heisterbach, and knows that history written in reliance\nupon him would be history fit for the moon. Words as ferocious are\nrecorded of another legate at a different siege (Langlois, _Regne de\nPhilippe le Hardi_, p. 156). Their tragic significance for history is\nnot in the mouth of an angry crusader at the storming of a fortress, but\nin the pen of an inoffensive monk, watching and praying under the\npeaceful summit of the Seven Mountains.\n\nMr. Lea undertakes to dispute no doctrine and to propose no moral. He\nstarts with an avowed desire not to say what may be construed\ninjuriously to the character or feelings of men. He writes pure history,\nand is methodically oblivious of applied history. The broad and\nsufficient realm of fact is divided by a scientific frontier from the\nouter world of interested argument. Beyond the frontier he has no\ncognisance, and neither aspires to inflame passions nor to compose the\ngreat eirenikon. Those who approach with love or hatred are to go empty\naway; if indeed he does not try by turns to fill them both. He seeks his\nobject not by standing aloof, as if the name that perplexed Polyphemus\nwas the proper name for historians, but by running successively on\nopposing lines. He conceives that civilised Europe owes its preservation\nto the radiant centre of religious power at Rome, and is grateful to\nInnocent III. for the vigour with which he recognised that force was the\nonly cure for the pestiferous opinions of misguided zealots. One of his\nauthorities is the inquisitor Bernardus Guidonis, and there is no writer\nwhom, in various shapes, he quotes so often. But when Guidonis says that\nDolcino and Margarita suffered _per juditium ecclesie_, Mr. Lea is\ncareful to vindicate the clergy from the blame of their sufferings.\n\nFrom a distinction which he draws between despotism and its abuse, and\nfrom a phrase, disparaging to elections, about rivers that cannot rise\nabove the level of their source, it would appear that Mr. Lea is not\nunder compulsion to that rigid liberalism which, by repressing the\ntime-test and applying the main rules of morality all round, converts\nhistory into a frightful monument of sin. Yet, in the wake of passages\nwhich push the praises of authority to the verge of irony, dire\ndenunciations follow. When the author looks back upon his labours, he\ndiscerns \"a scene of almost unrelieved blackness.\" He avers that \"the\ndeliberate burning alive of a human being simply for difference of\nbelief, is an atrocity,\" and speaks of a \"fiendish legislation,\" \"an\ninfernal curiosity,\" a \"seemingly causeless ferocity which appears to\npersecute for the mere pleasure of persecuting.\" The Inquisition is\n\"energetic only in evil\"; it is \"a standing mockery of justice, perhaps\nthe most iniquitous that the arbitrary cruelty of man has ever\ndevised.\"\n\nThis is not the protest of wounded humanity. The righteous resolve to\nbeware of doctrine has not been strictly kept. In the private judgment\nof the writer, the thinking of the Middle Ages was sophistry and their\nbelief superstition. For the erring and suffering mass of mankind he has\nan enlightened sympathy; for the intricacies of speculation he has none.\nHe cherishes a disbelief, theological or inductive it matters not, in\nsinners rescued by repentance and in blessings obtained by prayer.\nBetween remitted guilt and remitted punishment he draws a vanishing line\nthat makes it doubtful whether Luther started from the limits of\npurgatory or the limits of hell. He finds that it was a universal\nprecept to break faith with heretics, that it was no arbitrary or\nartificial innovation to destroy them, but the faithful outcome of the\ntraditional spirit of the Church. He hints that the horror of sensuality\nmay be easily carried too far, and that Saint Francis of Assisi was in\ntruth not very much removed from a worshipper of the devil. Prescott, I\nthink, conceived a resemblance between the god of Montezuma and the god\nof Torquemada; but he saw and suspected less than his more learned\ncountryman. If any life was left in the Strappado and the Samarra, no\nbook would deserve better than this description of their vicissitudes to\ngo the way of its author, and to fare with the flagrant volume, snatched\nfrom the burning at Champel, which is still exhibited to Unitarian\npilgrims in the Rue de Richelieu.\n\nIn other characteristic places we are taught to observe the agency of\nhuman passion, ambition, avarice, and pride; and wade through oceans of\nunvaried evil with that sense of dejection which comes from Digby's\n_Mores Catholici_ or the _Origines de la France Contemporaine_, books\nwhich affect the mind by the pressure of repeated instances. The\nInquisition is not merely \"the monstrous offspring of mistaken zeal,\"\nbut it is \"utilised by selfish greed and lust of power.\" No piling of\nsecondary motives will confront us with the true cause. Some of those\nwho fleshed their swords with preliminary bloodshed on their way to the\nholy war may have owed their victims money; some who in 1348 shared the\nworst crime that Christian nations have committed perhaps believed that\nJews spread the plague. But the problem is not there. Neither credulity\nnor cupidity is equal to the burden. It needs no weighty scholar,\npressed down and running over with the produce of immense research, to\ndemonstrate how common men in a barbarous age were tempted and\ndemoralised by the tremendous power over pain, and death, and hell. We\nhave to learn by what reasoning process, by what ethical motive, men\ntrained to charity and mercy came to forsake the ancient ways and made\nthemselves cheerfully familiar with the mysteries of the\ntorture-chamber, the perpetual prison, and the stake. And this cleared\naway, when it has been explained why the gentlest of women chose that\nthe keeper of her conscience should be Conrad of Marburg, and,\ninversely, how that relentless slaughterer directed so pure a penitent\nas Saint Elizabeth, a larger problem follows. After the first\ngeneration, we find that the strongest, the most original, the most\nindependent minds in Europe--men born for opposition, who were neither\nawed nor dazzled by canon law and scholastic theology, by the master of\nsentences, the philosopher and the gloss--fully agreed with Guala and\nRaymond. And we ask how it came about that, as the rigour of official\nzeal relaxed, and there was no compulsion, the fallen cause was taken up\nby the Council of Constance, the University of Paris, the\nStates-General, the House of Commons, and the first reformers; that\nXimenes outdid the early Dominicans, while Vives was teaching\ntoleration; that Fisher, with his friend's handy book of revolutionary\nliberalism in his pocket, declared that violence is the best argument\nwith Protestants; that Luther, excommunicated for condemning\npersecution, became a persecutor? Force of habit will not help us, nor\nlove and fear of authority, nor the unperceived absorption of\ncircumambient fumes.\n\nSomewhere Mr. Lea, perhaps remembering Maryland, Rhode Island, and\nPennsylvania, speaks of \"what was universal public opinion from the\nthirteenth to the seventeenth century.\" The obstacle to this theory, as\nof a ship labouring on the Bank, or an orb in the tail of a comet, is\nthat the opinion is associated with no area of time, and remains\nunshaken. The Dominican democrat who took his seat with the Mountain in\n1848 never swerved from the principles of his order. More often, and, I\nthink, more deliberately, Mr. Lea urges that intolerance is implied in\nthe definition of the mediaeval Church, that it sprang from the root and\ngrew with \"the very law of its being.\" It is no desperate expedient of\nauthority at bay, for \"the people were as eager as their pastors to send\nthe heretic to the stake.\" Therefore he does not blame the perpetrator,\nbut his inherited creed. \"No firm believer in the doctrine of exclusive\nsalvation could doubt that the truest mercy lay in sweeping away the\nemissaries of Satan with fire and sword.\" What we have here is the logic\nof history, constraining every system to utter its last word, to empty\nits wallets, and work its consequences out to the end. But this radical\ndoctrine misguides its author to the anachronism that as early as the\nfirst Leo \"the final step had been taken, and the Church was definitely\npledged to the suppression of heresy at whatever cost.\"\n\nWe do not demand that historians shall compose our opinions or relieve\nus from the purifying pains of thought. It is well if they discard\ndogmatising, if they defer judgment, or judge, with the philosopher, by\nprecepts capable of being a guide for all. We may be content that they\nshould deny themselves, and repress their sentiments and wishes. When\nthese are contradictory, or such as evidently to tinge the medium, an\nunholy curiosity is engendered to learn distinctly not only what the\nwriter knows, but what he thinks. Mr. Lea has a malicious pleasure in\nbaffling inquiry into the principle of his judgments. Having found, in\nthe Catechism of Saint Sulpice, that devout Catholics are much on a par\nwith the fanatics whose sympathy with Satan made the holy office a\nrequisite of civilisation, and having, by his exuberant censure,\nprepared us to hear that this requisite of civilisation \"might well seem\nthe invention of demons,\" he arrives at the inharmonious conclusion that\nit was wrought and worked, with benefit to their souls, by sincere and\ngodly men. The condemnation of Hus is the proper test, because it was\nthe extreme case of all. The council was master of the situation, and\nwas crowded with men accustomed to disparage the authority of the Holy\nSee and to denounce its acts. Practically, there was no pope either of\nRome or Avignon. The Inquisition languished. There was the plausible\nplea of deference to the emperor and his passport; there was the\nimperative consideration for the religious future of Bohemia. The\nreforming divines were free to pursue their own scheme of justice, of\nmercy, and of policy. The scheme they pursued has found an assiduous\napologist in their new historian. \"To accuse the good fathers of\nConstance of conscious bad faith\" is impossible. To observe the\nsafe-conduct would have seemed absurd \"to the most conscientious jurists\nof the council.\" In a nutshell, \"if the result was inevitable, it was\nthe fault of the system and not of the judges, and their conscience\nmight well feel satisfied.\"\n\nThere may be more in this than the oratorical precaution of a scholar\nwanting nothing, who chooses to be discreet rather than explicit, or the\nwavering utterance of a mind not always strung to the same pitch. It is\nnot the craving to rescue a favourite or to clear a record, but a fusion\nof unsettled doctrines of retrospective contempt. There is a\ndemonstration of progress in looking back without looking up, in finding\nthat the old world was wrong in the grain, that the kosmos which is\ninexorable to folly is indifferent to sin. Man is not an abstraction,\nbut a manufactured product of the society with which he stands or falls,\nwhich is answerable for crimes that are the shadow and the echo of its\nown nobler vices, and has no right to hang the rogue it rears. Before\nyou lash the detected class, mulct the undetected. Crime without a\nculprit, the unavenged victim who perishes by no man's fault, law\nwithout responsibility, the virtuous agent of a vicious cause--all these\nare the signs and pennons of a philosophy not recent, but rather\ninarticulate still and inchoate, which awaits analysis by Professor\nFlint.\n\nNo propositions are simpler or more comprehensive than the two, that an\nincorrigible misbeliever ought to burn, or that the man who burns him\nought to hang. The world as expanded on the liberal and on the hegemonic\nprojection is patent to all men, and the alternatives, that Lacordaire\nwas bad and Conrad good, are clear in all their bearings. They are too\ngross and palpable for Mr. Lea. He steers a subtler course. He does not\nsentence the heretic, but he will not protect him from his doom. He does\nnot care for the inquisitor, but he will not resist him in the discharge\nof his duty. To establish a tenable footing on that narrow but needful\nplatform is the epilogue these painful volumes want, that we may not be\nfound with the traveller who discovered a precipice to the right of him,\nanother to the left, and nothing between. Their profound and admirable\nerudition leads up, like Hellwald's _Culturgeschichte_, to a great note\nof interrogation. When we find the Carolina and the savage justice of\nTudor judges brought to bear on the exquisitely complex psychological\nrevolution that proceeded, after the year 1200, about the Gulf of Lyons\nand the Tyrrhene Sea, we miss the historic question. When we learn that\nPriscillian was murdered (i. 214), but that Lechler has no business to\ncall the sentence on John Hus \"ein wahrer Justizmord\" (ii. 494), and\nthen again that the burning of a heretic is a judicial murder after all\n(i. 552), we feel bereft of the philosophic answer.\n\nAlthough Mr. Lea gives little heed to Pani and Hefele, Gams and Du Boys,\nand the others who write for the Inquisition without pleading ignorance,\nhe emphasises a Belgian who lately wrote that the Church never employed\ndirect constraint against heretics. People who never heard of the\nBelgian will wonder that so much is made of this conventional figleaf.\nNearly the same assertion may be found, with varieties of caution and of\nconfidence, in a catena of divines, from Bergier to Newman. To appear\nunfamiliar with the defence exposes the writer to the thrust that you\ncannot know the strength or the weakness of a case until you have heard\nits advocates. The liberality of Leo XIII., which has yielded a\nsplendid and impartial harvest to Ehrle, and Schottmueller, and the\nEcole Francaise, raises the question whether the Abbe Duchesne or Father\nDenifle supplied with all the resources of the archives which are no\nlonger secret would produce a very different or more complete account.\nAs a philosophy of religious persecution the book is inadequate. The\nderivation of sects, though resting always upon good supports, stands\nout from an indistinct background of dogmatic history. The intruding\nmaxims, darkened by shadows of earth, fail to ensure at all times the\nobjective and delicate handling of mediaeval theory. But the vital parts\nare protected by a panoply of mail. From the Albigensian crusade to the\nfall of the Templars and to that Franciscan movement wherein the key to\nDante lies, the design and organisation, the activity and decline of the\nInquisition constitute a sound and solid structure that will survive the\ncensure of all critics. Apart from surprises still in store at Rome, and\nthe manifest abundance of Philadelphia, the knowledge which is common\nproperty, within reach of men who seriously invoke history as the final\nremedy for untruth and the sovereign arbiter of opinion, can add little\nto the searching labours of the American.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 401: _English Historical Review_, 1888.]\n\n\n\n\nXVI\n\nTHE AMERICAN COMMONWEALTH. By JAMES BRYCE[402]\n\n\n_THE AMERICAN COMMONWEALTH_ cancels that sentence of Scaliger which\nBacon amplifies in his warning against bookish politicians: \"Nec ego nec\nalius doctus possumus scribere in politicis.\" The distinctive import of\nthe book is its power of impressing American readers. Mr. Bryce is in a\nbetter position than the philosopher who said of another, \"Ich hoffe,\nwir werden uns recht gut verstaendigen koennen; und wenn auch keiner den\nandern ganz versteht, wird doch jeder dem andern dazu helfen, dass er\nsich selbst besser verstehe.\" He writes with so much familiarity and\nfeeling--the national, political, social sympathy is so spontaneous and\nsincere--as to carry a very large measure indeed of quiet reproach. The\nperfect tone is enough to sweeten and lubricate a medicine such as no\ntraveller since Hippocrates has administered to contrite natives. Facts,\nnot comments, convey the lesson; and I know no better illustration of a\nrecent saying: \"Si un livre porte un enseignement, ce doit etre malgre\nson auteur, par la force meme des faits qu'il raconte.\"\n\nIf our countryman has not the chill sententiousness of his great French\npredecessor, his portable wisdom and detached thoughts, he has made a\nfar deeper study of real life, apart from comparative politics and the\nEuropean investment of transatlantic experience. One of the very few\npropositions which he has taken straight from Tocqueville is also one of\nthe few which a determined fault-finder would be able to contest. For\nthey both say that the need for two chambers has become an axiom of\npolitical science. I will admit that the doctrine of Paine and Franklin\nand Samuel Adams, which the Pennsylvanian example and the authority of\nTurgot made so popular in France, is confuted by the argument of\nLaboulaye: \"La division du corps legislatif est une condition\nessentielle de la liberte. C'est la seule garantie qui assure la nation\ncontre l'usurpation de ses mandataires.\" But it may be urged that a\ntruth which is disputed is not an axiom; and serious men still imagine a\nstate of things in which an undivided legislature is necessary to resist\na too powerful executive, whilst two chambers can be made to curb and\nneutralise each other. Both Tocqueville and Turgot are said to have\nwavered on this point.\n\nIt has been said that Tocqueville never understood the federal\nconstitution. He believed, to his last edition, that the opening words\nof the first section, \"all legislative powers herein granted,\" meant\n\"tous les pouvoirs legislatifs determines par les representants.\" Story\nthought that he \"has borrowed the greater part of his reflections from\nAmerican works [meaning his own and Lieber's] and little from his own\nobservation.\" The French minister at Washington described his book as\n\"interessant mais fort peu exact\"; and even the _Nation_ calls it\n\"brilliant, superficial, and attractive.\" Mr. Bryce can never be accused\nof imperfect knowledge or penetration, of undue dependence upon others,\nor of writing up to a purpose. His fault is elsewhere. This scholar,\ndistinguished not only as a successful writer of history, which is said\nto be frequent, but as a trained and professed historian, which is rare,\naltogether declines the jurisdiction of the HISTORICAL REVIEW. His\ncontumacy is in gross black and white: \"I have had to resist another\ntemptation, that of straying off into history.\" Three stout volumes tell\nhow things are, without telling how they came about. I should have no\ntitle to bring them before this tribunal, if it were not for an\noccasional glimpse at the past; if it were not for a strongly marked\nand personal philosophy of American history which looms behind the Boss\nand the Boom, the Hoodlum and the Mugwump.\n\nThere is a valid excuse for preferring to address the unhistoric mind.\nThe process of development by which the America of Tocqueville became\nthe America of Lincoln has been lately described with a fulness of\nknowledge which no European can rival. Readers who thirst for the\nrunning stream can plunge and struggle through several thousand pages of\nHolst's _Verfassungsgeschichte_, and it is better to accept the division\nof labour than to take up ground so recently covered by a work which, if\nnot very well designed or well composed, is, by the prodigious digestion\nof material, the most instructive ever written on the natural history of\nfederal democracy. The author, who has spent twenty years on American\ndebates and newspapers, began during the pause between Sadowa and Woerth,\nwhen Germany was in the throes of political concentration that made the\nempire. He explains with complacency how another irrepressible conflict\nbetween centre and circumference came and went, and how the welfare of\nmankind is better served by the gathering than by the balance or\ndispersion of forces. Like Gneist and Tocqueville, he thinks of one\ncountry while he speaks of another; he knows nothing of reticence or\neconomy in the revelation of private opinion; and he has none of Mr.\nBryce's cheery indulgence for folly and error. But when the British\nauthor refuses to devote six months to the files of Californian\njournalism, he leaves the German master of his allotted field.\n\nThe actual predominates so much with Mr. Bryce that he has hardly a word\non that extraordinary aspect of democracy, the union in time of war; and\ngives no more than a passing glance at the confederate scheme of\ngovernment, of which a northern writer said: \"The invaluable reforms\nenumerated should be adopted by the United States, with or without a\nreunion of the seceded States, and as soon as possible.\" There are\npoints on which some additional light could be drawn from the roaring\nloom of time. In the chapter on Spoils it is not stated that the idea\nbelongs to the ministers of George III. Hamilton's argument against\nremovals is mentioned, but not the New York edition of _The Federalist_\nwith the marginal note that \"Mr. H. had changed his view of the\nconstitution on that point.\" The French wars of speculation and plunder\nare spoken of; but, to give honour where honour is due, it should be\nadded that they were an American suggestion. In May 1790, Morris wrote\nto two of his friends at Paris: \"I see no means of extricating you from\nyour troubles, but that which most men would consider as the means of\nplunging you into greater--I mean a war. And you should make it to\nyourselves a war of men, to your neighbours a war of money.... I hear\nyou cry out that the finances are in a deplorable situation. This should\nbe no obstacle. I think that they may be restored during war better than\nin peace. You want also something to turn men's attention from their\npresent discontents.\" There is a long and impartial inquiry into\nparliamentary corruption as practised now; but one wishes to hear so\ngood a judge on the report that money prevailed at some of the\nturning-points of American history; on the imputations cast by the\nyounger Adams upon his ablest contemporaries; on the story told by\nanother president, of 223 representatives who received accommodation\nfrom the bank, at the rate of a thousand pounds apiece, during its\nstruggle with Jackson.\n\nAmerica as known to the man in the cars, and America observed in the\nroll of the ages, do not always give the same totals. We learn that the\nbest capacity of the country is withheld from politics, that there is\nwhat Emerson calls a gradual withdrawal of tender consciences from the\nsocial organisation, so that the representatives approach the level of\nthe constituents. Yet it is in political science only that America\noccupies the first rank. There are six Americans on a level with the\nforemost Europeans, with Smith and Turgot, Mill and Humboldt. Five of\nthese were secretaries of state, and one was secretary of the treasury.\nWe are told also that the American of to-day regards the national\ninstitutions with a confidence sometimes grotesque. But this is a\nsentiment which comes down, not from Washington and Jefferson, but from\nGrant and Sherman. The illustrious founders were not proud of their\naccomplished work; and men like Clay and Adams persisted in desponding\nto the second and third generation. We have to distinguish what the\nnation owes to Madison and Marshall, and what to the army of the\nPotomac; for men's minds misgave them as to the constitution until it\nwas cemented by the ordeal and the sacrifice of civil war. Even the\nclaim put forward for Americans as the providers of humour for mankind\nseems to me subject to the same limitation. People used to know how\noften, or how seldom, Washington laughed during the war; but who has\nnumbered the jokes of Lincoln?\n\nAlthough Mr. Bryce has too much tact to speak as freely as the Americans\nthemselves in the criticism of their government, he insists that there\nis one defect which they insufficiently acknowledge. By law or custom no\nman can represent any district but the one he resides in. If ten\nstatesmen live in the same street, nine will be thrown out of work. It\nis worth while to point out (though this may not be the right place for\na purely political problem) that even in that piece of censure in which\nhe believes himself unsupported by his friends in the States, Mr. Bryce\nsays no more than intelligent Americans have said before him. It chances\nthat several of them have discussed this matter with me. One was\ngovernor of his State, and another is among the compurgators cited in\nthe preface. Both were strongly persuaded that the usage in question is\nan urgent evil; others, I am bound to add, judged differently, deeming\nit valuable as a security against Boulangism--an object which can be\nattained by restricting the number of constituencies to be addressed by\nthe same candidate. The two American presidents who agreed in saying\nthat Whig and Tory belong to natural history, proposed a dilemma which\nMr. Bryce wishes to elude. He prefers to stand half-way between the two,\nand to resolve general principles into questions of expediency,\nprobability, and degree: \"The wisest statesman is he who best holds the\nbalance between liberty and order.\" The sentiment is nearly that of\nCroker and De Quincey, and it is plain that the author would discard the\nvulgar definition that liberty is the end of government, and that in\npolitics things are to be valued as they minister to its security. He\nwrites in the spirit of John Adams when he said that the French and the\nAmerican Revolution had nothing in common, and of that eulogy of 1688 as\nthe true Restoration, on which Burke and Macaulay spent their finest\nprose. A sentence which he takes from Judge Cooley contains the brief\nabstract of his book: \"America is not so much an example in her liberty\nas in the covenanted and enduring securities which are intended to\nprevent liberty degenerating into licence, and to establish a feeling of\ntrust and repose under a beneficent government, whose excellence, so\nobvious in its freedom, is still more conspicuous in its careful\nprovision for permanence and stability.\" Mr. Bryce declares his own\npoint of view in the following significant terms: \"The spirit of 1787\nwas an English spirit, and therefore a conservative spirit.... The\nAmerican constitution is no exception to the rule that everything which\nhas power to win the obedience and respect of men must have its roots\ndeep in the past, and that the more slowly every institution has grown,\nso much the more enduring is it likely to prove.... There is a hearty\npuritanism in the view of human nature which pervades the instrument of\n1787.... No men were less revolutionary in spirit than the heroes of the\nAmerican Revolution. They made a revolution in the name of Magna Charta\nand the Bill of Rights.\" I descry a bewildered Whig emerging from the\nthird volume with a reverent appreciation of ancestral wisdom, Burke's\n_Reflections_, and the eighteen Canons of Dort, and a growing belief in\nthe function of ghosts to make laws for the quick.\n\nWhen the last Valois consulted his dying mother, she advised him that\nanybody can cut off, but that the sewing on is an acquired art. Mr.\nBryce feels strongly for the men who practised what Catharine thought so\ndifficult, and he stops for a moment in the midst of his very impersonal\ntreatise to deliver a panegyric on Alexander Hamilton. _Tanto nomini\nnullum par elogium._ His merits can hardly be overstated. Talleyrand\nassured Ticknor that he had never known his equal; Seward calls him \"the\nablest and most effective statesman engaged in organising and\nestablishing the union\"; Macmaster, the iconoclast, and Holst, poorly\nendowed with the gift of praise, unite in saying that he was the\nforemost genius among public men in the new world; Guizot told Rush that\n_The Federalist_ was the greatest work known to him, in the application\nof elementary principles of government to practical administration; his\nparadox in support of political corruption, so hard to reconcile with\nthe character of an honest man, was repeated to the letter by Niebuhr.\nIn estimating Hamilton we have to remember that he was in no sense the\nauthor of the constitution. In the convention he was isolated, and his\nplan was rejected. In _The Federalist_, written before he was thirty, he\npleaded for a form of government which he distrusted and disliked. He\nwas out of sympathy with the spirit that prevailed, and was not the true\nrepresentative of the cause, like Madison, who said of him, \"If his\ntheory of government deviated from the republican standard, he had the\ncandour to avow it, and the greater merit of co-operating faithfully in\nmaturing and supporting a system which was not his choice.\" The\ndevelopment of the constitution, so far as it continued on his lines,\nwas the work of Marshall, barely known to us by the extracts in late\neditions of the _Commentaries_. \"_The Federalist_,\" says Story, \"could\ndo little more than state the objects and general bearing of these\npowers and functions. The masterly reasoning of the chief-justice has\nfollowed them out to their ultimate results and boundaries with a\nprecision and clearness approaching, as near as may be, to mathematical\ndemonstration.\" Morris, who was as strong as Hamilton on the side of\nfederalism, testifies heavily against him as a leader: \"More a theoretic\nthan a practical man, he was not sufficiently convinced that a system\nmay be good in itself, and bad in relation to particular circumstances.\nHe well knew that his favourite form was inadmissible, unless as the\nresult of civil war; and I suspect that his belief in that which he\ncalled an approaching crisis arose from a conviction that the kind of\ngovernment most suitable, in his opinion, to this extensive country,\ncould be established in no other way.... He trusted, moreover, that in\nthe changes and chances of time we should be involved in some war, which\nmight strengthen our union and nerve the executive. He was of all men\nthe most indiscreet. He knew that a limited monarchy, even if\nestablished, could not preserve itself in this country.... He never\nfailed, on every occasion, to advocate the excellence of, and avow his\nattachment to, monarchical government.... Thus, meaning very well, he\nacted very ill, and approached the evils he apprehended by his very\nsolicitude to keep them at a distance.\" The language of Adams is more\nsevere; but Adams was an enemy. It has been justly said that \"he wished\ngood men, as he termed them, to rule; meaning the wealthy, the\nwell-born, the socially eminent.\" The federalists have suffered somewhat\nfrom this imputation; for a prejudice against any group claiming to\nserve under that flag is among the bequests of the French Revolution.\n\"Les honnetes gens ont toujours peur: c'est leur nature,\" is a maxim of\nChateaubriand. A man most divergent and unlike him, Menou, had drawn the\nsame conclusion: \"En revolution il ne faut jamais se mettre du cote des\nhonnetes gens: ils sont toujours balayes.\" And Royer Collard, with the\ncandour one shows in describing friends, said: \"C'est le parti des\nhonnetes gens qui est le moins honnete de tous les partis. Tout le\nmonde, meme dans ses erreurs, etait honnete a l'assemblee constituante,\nexcepte le cote droit.\" Hamilton stands higher as a political\nphilosopher than as an American partisan. Europeans are generally\nliberal for the sake of something that is not liberty, and conservative\nfor an object to be conserved; and in a jungle of other motives besides\nthe reason of state we cannot often eliminate unadulterated or\ndisinterested conservatism. We think of land and capital, tradition and\ncustom, the aristocracy and the services, the crown and the altar. It is\nthe singular superiority of Hamilton that he is really anxious about\nnothing but the exceeding difficulty of quelling the centrifugal forces,\nand that no kindred and coequal powers divide his attachment or\nintercept his view. Therefore he is the most scientific of conservative\nthinkers, and there is not one in whom the doctrine that prefers the\nship to the crew can be so profitably studied.\n\nIn his scruple to do justice to conservative doctrine Mr. Bryce extracts\na passage from a letter of Canning to Croker which, by itself, does not\nadequately represent that minister's views. \"Am I to understand, then,\nthat you consider the king as completely in the hands of the Tory\naristocracy as his father, or rather as George II. was in the hands of\nthe Whigs? If so, George III. reigned, and Mr. Pitt (both father and\nson) administered the government, in vain. I have a better opinion of\nthe real vigour of the crown when it chooses to put forth its own\nstrength, and I am not without some reliance on the body of the people.\"\nThe finest mind reared by many generations of English conservatism was\nnot always so faithful to monarchical traditions, and in addressing the\nincessant polemist of Toryism Canning made himself out a trifle better\nthan he really was. His intercourse with Marcellus in 1823 exhibits a\ndiluted orthodoxy: \"Le systeme britannique n'est que le butin des\nlongues victoires remportees par les sujets contre le monarque.\nOubliez-vous que les rois ne doivent pas donner des institutions, mais\nque les institutions seules doivent donner des rois?... Connaissez-vous\nun roi qui merite d'etre libre, dans le sens implicite du mot?... Et\nGeorge IV., croyez-vous que je serais son ministre, s'il avait ete libre\nde choisir?... Quand un roi denie au peuple les institutions dont le\npeuple a besoin, quel est le procede de l'Angleterre? Elle expulse ce\nroi, et met a sa place un roi d'une famille alliee sans doute, mais qui\nse trouve ainsi, non plus un fils de la royaute, confiant dans le droit\nde ses ancetres, mais le fils des institutions nationales, tirant tous\nses droits de cette seule origine.... Le gouvernement representatif est\nencore bon a une chose que sa majeste a oubliee. Il fait que des\nministres essuient sans repliquer les epigrammes d'un roi qui cherche a\nse venger ainsi de son impuissance.\"\n\nMr. Bryce's work has received a hearty welcome in its proper hemisphere,\nand I know not that any critic has doubted whether the pious founder,\nwith the dogma of unbroken continuity, strikes the just note or covers\nall the ground. At another angle, the origin of the greatest power and\nthe grandest polity in the annals of mankind emits a different ray. It\nwas a favourite doctrine with Webster and Tocqueville that the beliefs\nof the pilgrims inspired the Revolution, which others deem a triumph of\npelagianism; while J.Q. Adams affirms that \"not one of the motives which\nstimulated the puritans of 1643 had the slightest influence in actuating\nthe confederacy of 1774.\" The Dutch statesman Hogendorp, returning from\nthe United States in 1784, had the following dialogue with the\nstadtholder: \"La religion, monseigneur, a moins d'influence que jamais\nsur les esprits.... Il y a toute une province de quakers?... Depuis la\nrevolution il semble que ces sortes de differences s'evanouissent....\nLes Bostoniens ne sont-ils pas fort devots?... Ils l'etaient,\nmonseigneur, mais a lire les descriptions faites il y a vingt ou meme\ndix ans, on ne les reconnait pas de ce cote-la.\" It is an old story that\nthe federal constitution, unlike that of Herault de Sechelles, makes no\nallusion to the Deity; that there is none in the president's oath; and\nthat in 1796 it was stated officially that the government of the United\nStates is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion. No three\nmen had more to do with the new order than Franklin, Adams, and\nJefferson. Franklin's irreligious tone was such that his manuscripts,\nlike Bentham's, were suppressed, to the present year. Adams called the\nChristian faith a horrid blasphemy. Of Jefferson we are assured that, if\nnot an absolute atheist, he had no belief in a future existence; and he\nhoped that the French arms \"would bring at length kings, nobles, and\npriests to the scaffolds which they have been so long deluging with\nhuman blood.\" If Calvin prompted the Revolution, it was after he had\nsuffered from contact with Tom Paine; and we must make room for other\ninfluences which, in that generation, swayed the world from the rising\nto the setting sun. It was an age of faith in the secular sense\ndescribed by Guizot: \"C'etait un siecle ardent et sincere, un siecle\nplein de foi et d'enthousiasme. Il a eu foi dans la verite, car il lui a\nreconnu le droit de regner.\"\n\nIn point both of principle and policy, Mr. Bryce does well to load the\nscale that is not his own, and to let the jurist within him sometimes\nmask the philosophic politician. I have to speak of him not as a\npolitical reasoner or as an observer of life in motion, but only in the\ncharacter which he assiduously lays aside. If he had guarded less\nagainst his own historic faculty, and had allowed space to take up\nneglected threads, he would have had to expose the boundless innovation,\nthe unfathomed gulf produced by American independence, and there would\nbe no opening to back the Jeffersonian shears against the darning-needle\nof the great chief-justice. My misgiving lies in the line of thought of\nRiehl and the elder Cherbuliez. The first of those eminent conservatives\nwrites: \"Die Extreme, nicht deren Vermittelungen und Abschwaechungen,\ndeuten die Zukunft vor.\" The Genevese has just the same remark: \"Les\nidees n'ont jamais plus de puissance que sous leur forme la plus\nabstraite. Les idees abstraites ont plus remue le monde, elles ont cause\nplus de revolutions et laisse plus de traces durables que les idees\npratiques.\" Lassalle says, \"Kein Einzelner denkt mit der Consequenz\neines Volksgeistes.\" Schelling may help us over the parting ways: \"Der\nerzeugte Gedanke ist eine unabhaengige Macht, fuer sich fortwirkend, ja,\nin der menschlichen Seele, so anwachsend, dass er seine eigene Mutter\nbezwingt und unterwirft.\" After the philosopher, let us conclude with a\ndivine: \"C'est de revolte en revolte, si l'on veut employer ce mot, que\nles societes se perfectionnent, que la civilisation s'etablit, que la\njustice regne, que la verite fleurit.\"\n\nThe anti-revolutionary temper of the Revolution belongs to 1787, not to\n1776. Another element was at work, and it is the other element that is\nnew, effective, characteristic, and added permanently to the experience\nof the world. The story of the revolted colonies impresses us first and\nmost distinctly as the supreme manifestation of the law of resistance,\nas the abstract revolution in its purest and most perfect shape. No\npeople was so free as the insurgents; no government less oppressive than\nthe government which they overthrew. Those who deem Washington and\nHamilton honest can apply the term to few European statesmen. Their\nexample presents a thorn, not a cushion, and threatens all existing\npolitical forms, with the doubtful exception of the federal constitution\nof 1874. It teaches that men ought to be in arms even against a remote\nand constructive danger to their freedom; that even if the cloud is no\nbigger than a man's hand, it is their right and duty to stake the\nnational existence, to sacrifice lives and fortunes, to cover the\ncountry with a lake of blood, to shatter crowns and sceptres and fling\nparliaments into the sea. On this principle of subversion they erected\ntheir commonwealth, and by its virtue lifted the world out of its orbit\nand assigned a new course to history. Here or nowhere we have the broken\nchain, the rejected past, precedent and statute superseded by unwritten\nlaw, sons wiser than their fathers, ideas rooted in the future, reason\ncutting as clean as Atropos. The wisest philosopher of the old world\ninstructs us to take things as they are, and to adore God in the event:\n\"Il faut toujours etre content de l'ordre du passe, parce qu'il est\nconforme a la volonte de Dieu absolue, qu'on connoit par l'evenement.\"\nThe contrary is the text of Emerson: \"Institutions are not aboriginal,\nthough they existed before we were born. They are not superior to the\ncitizen. Every law and usage was a man's expedient to meet a particular\ncase. We may make as good; we may make better.\" More to the present\npoint is the language of Seward: \"The rights asserted by our forefathers\nwere not peculiar to themselves, they were the common rights of mankind.\nThe basis of the constitution was laid broader by far than the\nsuperstructure which the conflicting interests and prejudices of the day\nsuffered to be erected. The constitution and laws of the federal\ngovernment did not practically extend those principles throughout the\nnew system of government; but they were plainly promulgated in the\ndeclaration of independence. Their complete development and reduction to\npractical operation constitute the progress which all liberal statesmen\ndesire to promote, and the end of that progress will be complete\npolitical equality among ourselves, and the extension and perfection of\ninstitutions similar to our own throughout the world.\" A passage which\nHamilton's editor selects as the keynote of his system expresses well\nenough the spirit of the Revolution: \"The sacred rights of mankind are\nnot to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are\nwritten, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the\nhand of the Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by\nmortal power. I consider civil liberty, in a genuine, unadulterated\nsense, as the greatest of terrestrial blessings. I am convinced that the\nwhole human race is entitled to it, and that it can be wrested from no\npart of them without the blackest and most aggravated guilt.\" Those were\nthe days when a philosopher divided governments into two kinds, the bad\nand the good, that is, those which exist and those which do not exist;\nand when Burke, in the fervour of early liberalism, proclaimed that a\nrevolution was the only thing that could do the world any good: \"Nothing\nless than a convulsion that will shake the globe to its centre can ever\nrestore the European nations to that liberty by which they were once so\nmuch distinguished.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 402: _English Historical Review_, 1889.]\n\n\n\n\nXVII\n\nHISTORICAL PHILOSOPHY IN FRANCE AND FRENCH BELGIUM AND SWITZERLAND.\n\nBy ROBERT FLINT[403]\n\n\nWhen Dr. Flint's former work appeared, a critic, who, it is true, was\nalso a rival, objected that it was diffusely written. What then occupied\nthree hundred and thirty pages has now expanded to seven hundred, and\nsuggests a doubt as to the use of criticism. It must at once be said\nthat the increase is nearly all material gain. The author does not cling\nto his main topic, and, as he insists that the science he is adumbrating\nflourishes on the study of facts only, and not on speculative ideas, he\nbestows some needless attention on historians who professed no\nphilosophy, or who, like Daniel and Velly, were not the best of their\nkind. Here and there, as in the account of Condorcet, there may be an\nunprofitable or superfluous sentence. But on the whole the enlarged\ntreatment of the philosophy of history in France is accomplished not by\nexpansion, but by solid and essential addition. Many writers are\nincluded whom the earlier volume passed over, and Cousin occupies fewer\npages now than in 1874, by the aid of smaller type and the omission of a\npassage injurious to Schelling. Many necessary corrections and\nimprovements have been made, such as the transfer of Ballanche from\ntheocracy to the liberal Catholicism of which he is supposed to be the\nfounder.\n\nDr. Flint's unchallenged superiority consists alike in his familiarity\nwith obscure, but not irrelevant authors, whom he has brought into\nline, and in his scrupulous fairness towards all whose attempted systems\nhe has analysed. He is hearty in appreciating talent of every kind, but\nhe is discriminating in his judgment of ideas, and rarely sympathetic.\nWhere the best thoughts of the ablest men are to be displayed, it would\nbe tempting to present an array of luminous points or a chaplet of\npolished gems. In the hands of such artists as Stahl or Cousin they\nwould start into high relief with a convincing lucidity that would rouse\nthe exhibited writers to confess that they had never known they were so\nclever. Without transfiguration the effect might be attained by\nsometimes stringing the most significant words of the original.\nExcepting one unduly favoured competitor, who fills two pages with\nuntranslated French, there is little direct quotation. Cournot is one of\nthose who, having been overlooked at first, are here raised to\nprominence. He is urgently, and justly, recommended to the attention of\nstudents. \"They will find that every page bears the impress of patient,\nindependent, and sagacious thought. I believe I have not met with a more\ngenuine thinker in the course of my investigations. He was a man of the\nfinest intellectual qualities, of a powerful and absolutely truthful\nmind.\" But then we are warned that Cournot never wrote a line for the\ngeneral reader, and accordingly he is not permitted to speak for\nhimself. Yet it was this thoughtful Frenchman who said: \"Aucune idee\nparmi celles qui se referent a l'ordre des faits naturels ne tient de\nplus pres a la famille des idees religieuses que l'idee du progres, et\nn'est plus propre a devenir le principe d'une sorte de foi religieuse\npour ceux qui n'en ont pas d'autres. Elle a, comme la foi religieuse, la\nvertu de relever les ames et les caracteres.\"\n\nThe successive theories gain neither in clearness nor in contrast by the\norder in which they stand. As other countries are reserved for other\nvolumes, Cousin precedes Hegel, who was his master, whilst Quetelet is\nbarely mentioned in his own place, and has to wait for Buckle, if not\nfor Oettingen and Ruemelin, before he comes on for discussion. The finer\nthreads, the underground currents, are not carefully traced. The\nconnection between the _juste milieu_ in politics and eclecticism in\nphilosophy was already stated by the chief eclectic; but the subtler\nlink between the Catholic legitimists and democracy seems to have\nescaped the author's notice. He says that the republic proclaimed\nuniversal suffrage in 1848, and he considers it a triumph for the party\nof Lafayette. In fact, it was the triumph of an opposite school--of\nthose legitimists who appealed from the narrow franchise which sustained\nthe Orleans dynasty to the nation behind it. The chairman of the\nconstitutional committee was a legitimist, and he, inspired by the abbe\nde Genoude, of the _Gazette de France_, and opposed by Odilon Barrot,\ninsisted on the pure logic of absolute democracy.\n\nIt is an old story now that the true history of philosophy is the true\nevolution of philosophy, and that when we have eliminated whatever has\nbeen damaged by contemporary criticism or by subsequent advance, and\nhave assimilated all that has survived through the ages, we shall find\nin our possession not only a record of growth, but the full-grown fruit\nitself. This is not the way in which Dr. Flint understands the building\nup of his department of knowledge. Instead of showing how far France has\nmade a way towards the untrodden crest, he describes the many flowery\npaths, discovered by the French, which lead elsewhere, and I expect that\nin coming volumes it will appear that Hegel and Buckle, Vico and\nFerrari, are scarcely better guides than Laurent or Littre. Fatalism and\nretribution, race and nationality, the test of success and of duration,\nheredity and the reign of the invincible dead, the widening circle, the\nemancipation of the individual, the gradual triumph of the soul over the\nbody, of mind over matter, reason over will, knowledge over ignorance,\ntruth over error, right over might, liberty over authority, the law of\nprogress and perfectibility, the constant intervention of providence,\nthe sovereignty of the developed conscience--neither these nor other\nalluring theories are accepted as more than illusions or half-truths.\nDr. Flint scarcely avails himself of them even for his foundations or\nhis skeleton framework. His critical faculty, stronger than his gift of\nadaptation, levels obstructions and marks the earth with ruin. He is\nmore anxious to expose the strange unreason of former writers, the\ninadequacy of their knowledge, their want of aptitude in induction, than\ntheir services in storing material for the use of successors. The result\nis not to be the sifted and verified wisdom of two centuries, but a\nfuture system, to be produced when the rest have failed by an exhaustive\nseries of vain experiments. We may regret to abandon many brilliant laws\nand attractive generalisations that have given light and clearness and\nsimplicity and symmetry to our thought; but it is certain that Dr. Flint\nis a close and powerful reasoner, equipped with satisfying information,\nand he establishes his contention that France has not produced a classic\nphilosophy of history, and is still waiting for its Adam Smith or Jacob\nGrimm.\n\nThe kindred topic of development recurs repeatedly, as an important\nfactor in modern science. It is still a confused and unsettled chapter,\nand in one place Dr. Flint seems to attribute the idea to Bossuet; in\nanother he says that it was scarcely entertained in those days by\nProtestants, and not at all by Catholics; in a third he implies that its\ncelebrity in the nineteenth century is owing in the first place to\nLamennais. The passage, taken from Vinet, in which Bossuet speaks of the\ndevelopment of religion is inaccurately rendered. His words are the same\nwhich, on another page, are rightly translated \"the course of\nreligion\"--_la suite de la religion_. Indeed, Bossuet was the most\npowerful adversary the theory ever encountered. It was not so alien to\nCatholic theology as is here stated, and before the time of Jurieu is\nmore often found among Catholic than Protestant writers. When it was put\nforward, in guarded, dubious, and evasive terms, by Petavius, the\nindignation in England was as great as in 1846. The work which contained\nit, the most learned that Christian theology had then produced, could\nnot be reprinted over here, lest it should supply the Socinians with\ninconvenient texts. Nelson hints that the great Jesuit may have been a\nsecret Arian, and Bull stamped upon his theory amid the grateful\napplause of Bossuet and his friends. Petavius was not an innovator, for\nthe idea had long found a home among the Franciscan masters: \"Proficit\nfides secundum statum communem, quia secundum profectum temporum\nefficiebantur homines magis idonei ad percipienda et intelligenda\nsacramenta fidei.--Sunt multae conclusiones necessario inclusae in\narticulis creditis, sed antequam sunt per Ecclesiam declaratae et\nexplicatae non oportet quemcumque eas credere. Oportet tamen circa eas\nsobrie opinari, ut scilicet homo sit paratus eas tenere pro tempore, pro\nquo veritas fuerit declarata.\" Cardinal Duperron said nearly the same\nthing as Petavius a generation before him: \"L'Arien trouvera dans sainct\nIrenee, Tertullien et autres qui nous sont restez en petit nombre de ces\nsiecles-la, que le Fils est l'instrument du Pere, que le Pere a commande\nau Fils lors qu'il a este question de la creation des choses, que le\nPere et le Fils sont _aliud et aliud_; choses que qui tiendroit\naujourd'huy, que le langage de l'Eglise est plus examine, seroit estime\npour Arien luy-mesme.\" All this does not serve to supply the pedigree\nwhich Newman found it so difficult to trace. Development, in those days,\nwas an expedient, an hypothesis, and not even the thing so dear to the\nOxford probabilitarians, a working hypothesis. It was not more\nsubstantial than the gleam in Robinson's farewell to the pilgrims: \"I am\nvery confident that the Lord has more truth yet to break forth out of\nHis holy word.\" The reason why it possessed no scientific basis is\nexplained by Duchesne: \"Ce n'est guere avant la seconde moitie du xviie\nsiecle qu'il devint impossible de soutenir l'authenticite des fausses\ndecretales, des constitutions apostoliques, des 'Recognitions\nClementines,' du faux Ignace, du pseudo-Dionys et de l'immense fatras\nd'oeuvres anonymes ou pseudonymes qui grossissait souvent du tiers ou de\nla moitie l'heritage litteraire des auteurs les plus considerables. Qui\naurait pu meme songer a un developpement dogmatique?\" That it was\nlittle understood, and lightly and loosely employed, is proved by\nBossuet himself, who alludes to it in one passage as if he did not know\nthat it was the subversion of his theology: \"Quamvis ecclesia omnem\nveritatem funditus norit, ex haeresibus tamen discit, ut aiebat magni\nnominis Vincentius Lirinensis, aptius, distinctius, clariusque eandem\nexponere.\"\n\nThe account of Lamennais suffers from the defect of mixing him up too\nmuch with his early friends. No doubt he owed to them the theory that\ncarried him through his career, for it may be found in Bonald, and also\nin De Maistre, though not, perhaps, in the volumes he had already\npublished. It was less original than he at first imagined, for the\nEnglish divines commonly held it from the seventeenth century, and its\ndirge was sung only the other day by the Bishop of Gloucester and\nBristol.[404] A Scottish professor would even be justified in claiming\nit for Reid. But of course it was Lamennais who gave it most importance,\nin his programme and in his life. And his theory of the common sense,\nthe theory that we can be certain of truth only by the agreement of\nmankind, though vigorously applied to sustain authority in State and\nChurch, gravitated towards multitudinism, and marked him off from his\nassociates. When he said _quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus_, he\nwas not thinking of the Christian Church, but of Christianity as old as\nthe creation; and the development he meant led up to the Bible, and\nended at the New Testament instead of beginning there. That is the\ntheory which he made so famous, which founded his fame and governed his\nfate, and to which Dr. Flint's words apply when he speaks of celebrity.\nIn that sense it is a mistake to connect Lamennais with Moehler and\nNewman; and I do not believe that he anticipated their teaching, in\nspite of one or two passages which do not, on the face of them, bear\ndate B.C., and may, no doubt, be quoted for the opposite opinion.\n\nIn the same group Dr. Flint represents De Maistre as the teacher of\nSavigny, and asserts that there could never be a doubt as to the\nliberalism of Chateaubriand. There was none after his expulsion from\noffice; but there was much reason for doubting in 1815, when he\nentreated the king to set bounds to his mercy; in 1819, when he was\ncontributing to the _Conservateur_; and in 1823, when he executed the\nmandate of the absolute monarchs against the Spanish constitution. His\nzeal for legitimacy was at all times qualified with liberal elements,\nbut they never became consistent or acquired the mastery until 1824. De\nMaistre and Savigny covered the same ground at one point; they both\nsubjected the future to the past. This could serve as an argument for\nabsolutism and theocracy, and on that account was lovely in the eyes of\nDe Maistre. If it had been an argument the other way he would have cast\nit off. Savigny had no such ulterior purpose. His doctrine, that the\nliving are not their own masters, could serve either cause. He rejected\na mechanical fixity, and held that whatever has been made by process of\ngrowth shall continue to grow and suffer modification. His theory of\ncontinuity has this significance in political science, that it supplied\na basis for conservatism apart from absolutism and compatible with\nfreedom. And, as he believed that law depends on national tradition and\ncharacter, he became indirectly and through friends a founder of the\ntheory of nationality.\n\nThe one writer whom Dr. Flint refuses to criticise, because he too\nnearly agrees with him, is Renouvier. Taking this avowal in conjunction\nwith two or three indiscretions on other pages, we can make a guess, not\nat the system itself, which is to console us for so much deviation, but\nat its tendency and spirit The fundamental article is belief in divine\ngovernment. As Kant beheld God in the firmament of heaven, so too we can\nsee him in history on earth. Unless a man is determined to be an\natheist, he must acknowledge that the experience of mankind is a\ndecisive proof in favour of religion. As providence is not absolute, but\nreigns over men destined to freedom, its method is manifested in the law\nof progress. Here, however, Dr. Flint, in his agreement with Renouvier,\nis not eager to fight for his cause, and speaks with a less jubilant\ncertitude. He is able to conceive that providence may attain its end\nwithout the condition of progress, that the divine scheme would not be\nfrustrated if the world, governed by omnipotent wisdom, became steadily\nworse. Assuming progress as a fact, if not a law, there comes the\nquestion wherein it consists, how it is measured, where is its goal. Not\nreligion, for the Middle Ages are an epoch of decline. Catholicism has\nsince lost so much ground as to nullify the theories of Bossuet; whilst\nProtestantism never succeeded in France, either after the Reformation,\nwhen it ought to have prevailed, nor after the Revolution, when it ought\nnot. The failure to establish the Protestant Church on the ruins of the\nold _regime_, to which Quinet attributes the breakdown of the\nRevolution, and which Napoleon regretted almost in the era of his\nconcordat, is explained by Mr. Flint on the ground that Protestants were\nin a minority. But so they were in and after the wars of religion; and\nit is not apparent why a philosopher who does not prefer orthodoxy to\nliberty should complain that they achieved nothing better than\ntoleration. He disproves Bossuet's view by that process of deliverance\nfrom the Church which is the note of recent centuries, and from which\nthere is no going back. On the future I will not enlarge, because I am\nwriting at present in the HISTORICAL, not the PROPHETICAL, REVIEW. But\nsome things were not so clear in France in 1679 as they are now at\nEdinburgh. The predominance of Protestant power was not foreseen, except\nby those who disputed whether Rome would perish in 1710 or about 1720.\nThe destined power of science to act upon religion had not been proved\nby Newton or Simon. No man was able to forecast the future experience of\nAmerica, or to be sure that observations made under the reign of\nauthority would be confirmed by the reign of freedom.\n\nIf the end be not religion, is it morality, humanity, civilisation,\nknowledge? In the German chapters of 1874 Dr. Flint was severe upon\nHegel, and refused his notion that the development of liberty is the\nsoul of history, as crude, one-sided, and misunderstood. He is more\nlenient now, and affirms that liberty occupies the final summit, that it\nprofits by all the good that is in the world, and suffers by all the\nevil, that it pervades strife and inspires endeavour, that it is almost,\nif not altogether, the sign, and the prize, and the motive in the onward\nand upward advance of the race for which Christ was crucified. As that\nrefined essence which draws sustenance from all good things it is\nclearly understood as the product of civilisation, with its complex\nproblems and scientific appliances, not as the elementary possession of\nthe noble savage, which has been traced so often to the primeval forest.\nOn the other hand, if sin not only tends to impair, but does inevitably\nimpair and hinder it, providence is excluded from its own mysterious\nsphere, which, as it is not the suppression of all evil and present\npunishment of wrong, should be the conversion of evil into an instrument\nto serve the higher purpose. But although Dr. Flint has come very near\nto Hegel and Michelet, and seemed about to elevate their teaching to a\nhigher level and a wider view, he ends by treating it coldly, as a\npartial truth requiring supplement, and bids us wait until many more\nexplorers have recorded their soundings. That, with the trained capacity\nfor misunderstanding and the smouldering dissent proper to critics, I\nmight not mislead any reader, or do less than justice to a profound\nthough indecisive work, I should have wished to piece together the\npassages in which the author indicates, somewhat faintly, the promised\nbut withheld philosophy which will crown his third or fourth volume. Any\none who compares pages 125, 135, 225, 226, 671, will understand better\nthan I can explain it the view which is the master-key to the book.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 403: _English Historical Review_, 1895.]\n\n[Footnote 404: [Dr. Ellicott.]]\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX\n\nBy the kindness of the Abbot Gasquet we are enabled to supplement the\nBibliography of Acton's writings published by the Royal Historical\nSociety with the following additional items:--\n\nIn _The Rambler_, 1858\n\nApril--Burke.\nJuly--[With Simpson] Mr. Buckle's Thesis and Method.\n      Short Reviews.\nAugust--Mr. Buckle's Philosophy of History.\nOctober--Theiner's _Documents inedits relatifs aux affaires religieuses\n         de France 1790-1800_, pp. 265-267.\nDecember--The Count de Montalembert, pp. 421-428 and note, 432.\n          Carlyle's _History of Frederick the Great_, vols. i. and\n          ii. p. 429.\n\n1859\n\nJanuary--Political Thoughts on the Church.\nFebruary--The Catholic Press.\nSeptember--Contemporary Events.\n\n1860\n\nSeptember--National Defence.\n           Irish Education in Current Events.\n\n1862\n\nCorrespondence.\nThe Danger of the Physical Sciences.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\n\nAbbot, Archbishop, and Father Paul, 432\n\nAbbott, Dr., on Bacon and Machiavelli, 228\n\nAbsolutism, causes contributing to, 288\n  impulse given to, by teaching of Machiavelli, 41\n  inherently present in France, 237-40\n  and the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, 121\n  the old, its most revolutionary act, 275\n  sanction of, 433\n\nAbsolutists, eighteenth century, their care solely for the State, 273\n\n_Acta Sanctorum_ authority on the inception and early growth of the\n  Inquisition, 554\n\nActon, Lord--\n  Character and characteristics of--\n    Absolutism detested by, xxxi, xxxiv\n    admiration of, for George Eliot and for Gladstone, basis of, xxiii\n    Catholicism of, xii-xiv, xix, xx, xxvii, xxviii;\n      attitude of, to doctrine of Papal Infallibility, xxv, xxvi;\n      reality of his faith, xviii _et seq._\n    ideals cherished by, document embodying, xxxviii-ix;\n      need of directing ideals practised by, xxii, xxiv\n    individualistic tendencies of, xxviii\n    intense individuality of, xvi\n    objection of, to doctrine of moral relativity, xxxii, xxxiii\n    personality of, as exhibited in present volume, xii;\n      greatness of, xxii, xxxvii, xxxviii\n    severity of his judgments, xxv, xxvii\n  Literary activity and tastes of--\n    contributions of, to periodicals, light thrown by, on his erudition\n    and critical faculty, ix\n    _History of Liberty_ projected by, xxxv\n    as leader-writer, ix\n    preference of, for matter rather than manner in literature, xxii\n    literary activity, three chief periods in, xii-xiv\n    writings of, planned, xxxv, xxxvi;\n      and completed, ix _et passim_;\n      why comparatively few, xxxv-vii;\n      qualities in, iv, x, xvi;\n      instance of, xi;\n      the real inspiration of, and of his life, xxi;\n      style of, xxxiv _et seq._\n    origin, birth, and environment of, xiv, xviii, xix, xxxiii\n    political errors of, xxviii _et seq._;\n      on freedom, xxxi;\n      on Liberalism, xxv, xxx\n    on Stahl, 391\n\nAdams, J.Q., on the Christian faith, 585\n  denying the influence of the pilgrims on the American Revolution, 584\n  despondency of, as to American constitution, 579\n  discriminating between American and French Revolutions, 580\n  on Hamilton, 582\n\nAdams, the younger, 578\n\nAddison, J., inconsistent ideas of, regarding liberty, 53\n\nAddress of the Bishops at Rome, Wiseman's draft, the facts\n  concerning, 444-5;\n  attacks on, of the _Patrie_, 439, 443, 444, 445;\n  Wiseman's reply, _and see Home and Foreign Review_\n\nAhrens, _cited_ on national government, 227\n\nAlamanni, forecasting the Huguenot massacres, 109\n\nAlbertus Magnus, 557\n\nAlbigenses, how dealt with by Montfort, 556\n  why persecuted, 168\n\nAldobrandini, Cardinal Hippolyto, _see_ Clement VIII.\n\nAlessandria, Cardinal of, Michielli Bonelli, Legate of Pius V. mission of,\n  to Spain, Portugal, and France, 112;\n    his famous companion, 113;\n    his ostensible purpose, its failure, information given to, on the\n    forthcoming massacre, 113-14\n  after the St. Bartholomew 140\n\nAlfonso, King of Aragon, proscription by, of heretics, 558\n\nAlva, Duke of, Catherine de' Medici's message to, on the massacres, 122\n  failure of, in the Low Countries, 103\n  judgment of, on the St. Bartholomew, 124\n  letter of, on the St. Bartholomew. 108 & _note_\n  ordered to slay all Huguenot prisoners, 141-2\n\nAmerica, colonists of, opposition of Lords Chatham and Camden to, 55\n  early settlers in, Catholic and Protestant, contrasted action as to\n  religious liberty, 187\n  doctrine of rights of man, originated from, 55\n  United States, democracy in, 64\n    government, based on Burke's political philosophy, 56;\n      how the value of this foundation was negatived, 56\n    humour in, 579\n    national institutions of, attitude to, of Americans of to-day, not\n    that of the founders, 579\n    place of, in political science, 578\n    presidency of Monroe, \"the era of good feeling,\" 56\n    progress of democracy in, 84\n    religion in, Doellinger on, 339-40\n    representation in, defect concerning, 579\n\n_American Commonwealth The_, by James Bryce, _review_, 575\n\nAmerican Constitution, Hamilton's position regarding, 581;\n    its development due to Marshall, _ib._\n  how cemented, 579\n  government, confederate scheme of, 577\n  Judge Cooley on, 580\n  liberty, Judge Cooley on, 580\n  revolution, the abstract revolution in perfection, 586\n    no point of comparison between it and the French, 580\n    not inspired by the beliefs of the Pilgrim Fathers, 584-5\n    spirit of, 580, 587\n\nAmericans, attitude of the best towards politics, 578\n\nAnabaptists, destructive tendency of their teaching, 157, 169, 171, 174,\n  175, 178, 185;\n    and its effect on Luther, 155\n  intolerance of, 171-2\n  views of reformers as to their toleration, 157, 164, 167, 176\n\nAndreae. Lutheran divine, on the Huguenots, 145\n\nAngelis, de Cardinal, manager of elections to Commission on Dogma, 529\n  President of Vatican Council, 534\n\nAnglicanism, appreciation of Doellinger for some exponents of, 395\n  and growth of other sects, 334-7\n  progress of, 329-32\n\nAnjou, Confession of, on the St. Bartholomew, 107\n\nAnjou, Duke of (_see also_ Henry III.), and the crown of Poland, 105,\n  120, 144\n  schemes for marriage of, with Queen Elizabeth, 105\n  guilt of, for the St. Bartholomew, 110\n  orders of, for Huguenot massacre in his lands, 119\n\nAnnalists, method of, compared with that of scientific historians, 233\n\nAntiquity, authority of State excessive in, 4\n  of liberty proved by recent historians, 5\n\nAntonelli, Cardinal, advice of, to Bonnechose, 529\n  discussion of Infallibilty by Vatican Council, denied by, 518-19\n  on temporal power of Papacy, 414\n\nApologists for the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, 147-8\n\nApology of Confession of Augsburg on excommunication, 158\n\nArianism among the Teutonic tribes, 199\n  suggested, of Petavius, and why, 592\n\nAristides and democracy, 68\n\nAristocracy, destruction of, in the Reign of Terror, 262\n  early eighteenth-century, 273-4\n  government by, advocated by Pythagoras, 21;\n    government by, danger of, 20\n  Roman, struggle with plebeians, 13, 14\n\nAristotle on class interests, 69\n  estimation of, by Doellinger, 406\n  _Ethics_ of, democracy condemned by, 71\n  _Politics_ of, 22, 79;\n    makes concession to democracy, 72\n  saying of, reflecting the illiberal sentiments of his age, 18\n\nArles, Council of, and the Count of Toulouse, 565\n\nArnaud and the saying, \"God knows His own,\" 567\n\nArnauld, 429\n\nArnim, Baron, influence of, at Vatican Council, 506\n  interview of, with Doellinger, 426\n\nArnold of Brescia, 559\n\nArragon, constructive science of its people, 557\n  heresy in (1230), 556;\n    lead of the country in persecution, 557\n\nArtists, method of, compared with that of scientific historians, 233\n\nAscoli, Cecco d', fate of, 564-5\n\nAshburton, Lady, 382\n\nAsoka (Buddhist king), first to proclaim and establish representative\n  government, 26\n\nAssassination, _see also_ Murder and Regicide\n  Catherine de' Medici's plan, inspired by member of Council of Trent, 216\n  expediency of, view of Swedish bishops, 217\n  as a political weapon, 213-14\n  religious, considered expedient, 325\n  the reward of heresy, a doctrine of the Church in Middle Ages, 216\n\nAthenagoras _cited_, 70\n\nAthenians, character of, 11\n\nAthens, constitution of, rapid decline in career of, 11;\n    revision of, provided for by Solon with good results, 7, 8\n  democracy of, 66;\n    tyranny manifested by, 12\n  government by consent superseded government by compulsion, under Solon, 7\n  laws of, revised by Solon, 6\n  political equality at, 68\n  Republic of, causes of ruin of, 70\n    death of Socrates crowning act of guilt of, 12\n    reform in, came too late, 12, 13\n\nAubigne, Merle d', and the charge against the Bordeaux clergy, 127 _note_\n\nAuger, Edmond, S.J., and the Bordeaux massacres, 127\n\nAugsburg, Confession of, axiom concerning importance of, in Luther's\n  system of politics, 159\n  Apology of, on excommunication, 158\n\nAustria, Concordat in, its failure, 292\n  opposition to Vatican politics in, and to the Council, 503, 506\n  policy of repression in, after Waterloo, 283\n  representation of, on Vatican Council, 509\n\nAustria, Don Juan of, and the victory of Lepanto, 104;\n  effect of, marred by Charles IX., 105\n\nAustrian Empire, nationalities in, 295, 296;\n  why substantial, one of the most perfect States, 298\n\nAustrian power in Italy, effect of, on nationality, 287\n  rule in Italy, error of, 285\n\nAuthorities, use made of, revealing qualities of historians, 235\n\nAuthority of the Church questioned through Frohschammer's\n  excommunication, 477-8\n\nAuthority, supreme, of the Church, 192;\n  attitude of _Home and Foreign Review_ towards, 482-91\n\nAvaux, D', view of expedient political massacre, 218\n\nAvignon, removal of the Papacy to, 370;\n  strife between, and the Franciscans, 552\n\nAyamonte, Spanish Ambassador to Paris, 123\n\n\nBaader, F.X. von, estimate of, by Doellinger and Martensen, 376;\n    work of, 377;\n    father-in-law of Lasaulx, 405\n  Schelling's coolness to, 381\n\nBaboeuf, proclaimer of Communism, 273\n\nBach, administration of, in Austria, 283\n\nBacon, Francis, 562\n  advocate of passive obedience to kings, 48\n  modern attacks on, 377\n  on bookish politicians, 575\n  on St. Thomas Aquinas, 37\n  influence of Machiavelli on, 228\n  _cited_ on political justification, 220\n\nBacon, Sir Nicholas, 44\n\nBaden (1862), nationality in, 295\n\nBaglioni, family of, models for Machiavelli, 212\n\nBain, T., interpreter of Locke, 220\n\nBallanche and liberal Catholicism, 588\n\nBallerini, influence on Doellinger, 387\n\nBalmez, classed as Ultramontane, 451\n\nBaltimore, synod of, and Infallibility, 499\n\nBaluze, 559\n\nBarbarians, the, become instrument of the Church by introducing single\n  system of law, 244\n\nBarberini, Cardinal, on reason for condemning De Thou's History, 147\n\nBaronius, 379, 429;\n  Doellinger's study of, 387\n\nBarrot, O., opposed to universal suffrage, 590\n\nBarrow, Isaac, Doellinger's Roman antidote to, 387\n\nBasel, Church government at, under OEcolampadius, 176\n\nBaudrillart, cited on Machiavelli's universality, 226\n\nBaumgarten, Crusius, on political expediency, 230\n  works of, esteemed by Doellinger, 381\n\nBaur, Ferdinand, on historical facts, 385\n  work of, estimated by Doellinger, 381, 404\n\nBavaria, Catholic stronghold (1572), 103\n\nBaxter, Richard, 416\n\nBayle, Pierre, _cited_ on Servetus, 185\n\nBayonne, conference of, massacre of St. Bartholomew the outcome of,\n  108, 109 & _note_, 124\n\nBeaconsfield, Earl of, story of, 551;\n  view of Doellinger on, 391\n\nBeauville, bearer to Rome of news of the St. Bartholomew, 132-3\n\nBeccaria, on importance of success as result of action, 223\n\nBelgian revolution, causes united in, 284\n\nBelgium, representation of, on Vatican Council, 507\n  vigorous growth of municipal liberties in, 38\n\nBellarmine, Cardinal, deceived by hierarchical fictions, 420\n\n\"Bellum Haereticorum pax est Ecclesiae,\" maxim utilised by Polish\n  bishops, 103\n\nBenedict XIV., Pope, 148\n  scholarship under, 387\n\nBennettis, De, appreciated by Doellinger, 387\n\nBentham, Jeremy, pioneer in abolition of legal abuses, 3\n  principle of greatest happiness, 223\n\nBerardi, Cardinal, influence of, on Doellinger, 387\n  proposed announcement of discussion of Infallibility at Vatican Council\n  set aside, 518\n\nBergier, 573\n\nBerlin, 378\n\nBernard, Brother, 564\n\nBernays, 432\n\nBesold, followers of Machiavelli denounced by, 225\n\nBeust, Count, on Vatican Council, 503;\n  indifference to, 509\n\nBeza, Theodore, death of Servetus approved by, 185\n  defence of Calvin, 183\n  on the Huguenot massacres, on toleration, and on the civil authority\n  over religious crime, 146\n  on religious assassination, 326\n\nBeziers, siege of, 567\n\nBianchi, recommended by Doellinger, 387\n\nBible, inspiration of, 513-15\n  as sole guide in all things, Luther's principle, 154, 158, 159, 161\n\nBigamy of the Landgrave of Hesse, how dealt with by Luther, and why, 160\n\nBilio, Cardinal, junior president of Vatican Council, 534\n\nBiner, apologist of the St. Bartholomew, 148\n\nBiran, Maine de, _cited_ on political expediency, 220\n\nBishops, the, address to Pius, in preparation for Vatican Council, 494, 499\n  attitude of, towards Bull _Multiplices inter_, 520-25\n  and the Papacy, 511\n  protesting, charge of sharing Doellinger's views, repudiated by, 538\n    deception of, at Vatican Council, 518-526\n    hostility of, harm done by, 531\n    withdrawal of, from close of Vatican Council, 549\n\nBismarck, Count, on State participation in Vatican Council, 506\n\nBizarri, policy of, on Vatican Council, 534\n\nBlanc, Louis, a secret worker for overthrow of Louis Philippe, 92\n\nBlasphemy, reasons for its punishment by the Reformers, 169, 175\n\nBlois, French court at, 112;\n  Coligny at, 1571., 115\n\nBlondel, Doellinger's gratitude to, 393\n\nBlue Laws of Connecticut, 55\n\nBoccaccio, Giovanni, revision of the _Decamerone_, 215\n\nBoccapaduli, Papal secretary, speech of, on the Massacre of St.\n  Bartholomew, 136\n\nBodin, _cited_ on _Il Principe_, 218\n\nBohemia, religious future of, in relation to the case of Hus, 571\n\nBolingbroke, Lord, slight knowledge of Machiavelli's works, 218\n\nBologna, University of, 556\n\nBona, Cardinal, urged suppression of _Liber Diurnus_, 516\n\nBonald, and absolute monarchy, 467\n  and Lamennais's theory, 593\n  ultramontanism of, 451\n\nBonelli, Michiel, _see_ Alessandria, Cardinal of\n\nBoniface VIII., Pope, Bull of, on supreme spiritual power, 324;\n  vindications of, inspired by Doellinger, 391\n\nBonnechose, Cardinal, share of, in elections to Commission of\n  Dogma, 529, 532\n  urged French representation on Vatican Council, 504\n\nBordeaux, the Huguenot massacres of, 127\n\nBoretius, _cited_ on Frederick the Great and Machiavelli, 229\n\nBorghese, Cardinal, afterwards Paul V., Pope, his knowledge of the\n  planned character of St. Bartholomew, 114\n\nBorgia, compiler of history, 387\n  family, models for Machiavelli, 212\n  Francis, S.J., 113\n\nBorromeo, Cardinal, 108 _& notes_, 108-9\n\nBossuet, advocate of passive obedience to kings, 47, 429, 434\n  _Defensio_ feared, 378\n  indignation of, 148\n  and the idea of development, 591, 592, 593, 595\n  on love of country, 20 _& note_\n  work of, compared to Doellinger, 424\n\nBoucher, 45;\n  on Henry III. of France and reliance on maxims of _Il Principe_, 215\n\nBourbon, Cardinal of, unguarded speech of, on coming Huguenot massacre, 111\n  Etienne de, inquisitor, works of, 558-9\n  House of, French and Spanish, contests of the Habsburgs with, 275\n  House of, upholders of supremacy of kingship over people, 47\n\nBourges, massacre of Huguenots commanded at, by Charles IX. La Chastre's\n  refusal to obey, 115\n\nBoys, Du, defender of the Inquisition, 573\n\nBrandenburg, Albrecht, Margrave of, and the Anabaptists, 157, _& see_\n  156 _note_\n\nBrantome on the death of Elizabeth of Valois, 104\n\nBrescia, Bishop of, _see_ Guala\n  city, centre of historical work, 387\n\nBrewer, intercourse with Doellinger, 402\n\nBrief of Pius IX. to Archbishop of Munich, and attitude of _Home and\n  Foreign Review_ to supreme authority of the Church, 482-491\n\nBrill, the, Dutch maritime victory, its importance, 103\n\nBritish empire, why substantially one of the most perfect states, 298\n\nBrittany, and the Huguenot massacres, 119\n\nBrixen, Bishop of, on Papal authority, 543\n\nBrosch, on Cardinal Pole and _Il Principe_, 214\n\nBrougham, Lord, advice to students, 393\n\nBruce, house of, struggle with house of Plantagenet, 35\n\nBruno, 430\n\nBryce, James, _The American Commonwealth_, review, 575\n\nBucer, Martin, in favour of persecution, 172-73\n\nBuch, De, 430\n\nBuchanan, 44, 45\n\nBuckeridge, Blondel, Doellinger's Roman antidote to, 387\n\nBuckle, H.T., 589, 590\n\nBugge, discoveries of, 405\n\nBull, censure of the Reformation of, 416\n\nBull of Boniface VIII., on supreme spiritual authority, 324\n\nBull of Gregory XIII. relating to the Huguenot massacres, 134-45 & _note_;\n  not admitted into official collections 101\n\nBull _Multiplices inter_, of Vatican Council, 520-22\n\n_Bullarium Dominicanum_, the, referred to by Lea, 563\n\nBullinger, Heinrich, death of Servetus approved by, 185\n  _cited_ on persecution, 174-76\n\nBurd, L.A., edition of Machiavelli's _Il Principe_, introduction to,\n  212-31;\n    skill as exponent of Machiavelli's political system, 212\n  text of the _Discorsi_ produced by, 227\n\nBurgundy, refusal of its governors to massacre Huguenots, 118\n\nBurke, Edmund, 580;\n    Doellinger's political model, 393, 417\n  French Revolution denounced by, 219\n  on the moral and political as distinct from the merely geographical, 294\n  on the partition of Poland, 275\n  on revolution, 587\n  _cited_ on political oppression in Ireland, 253, _note_\n  on the rights of mankind, 56\n\nBurning of heretics, Lea's view on, 568\n\nByzantine despotism, due to combined influence of Church and State, 33\n\nBzovius, authority on the Inquisition, 554\n\n\nCadiz Constitution, 1812., 89;\n  its overthrow the triumph of the restored monarchy of France, 89\n\nCaesarius of Heisterbach, authority of, distrusts by Lea, 567\n\nCalhoun, J.C., indictment against democracy, 93\n\nCalvin, John, 176, 585\n  action of, with regard to Servetus, 184;\n    and his defence of the same, 181\n  attitude of, to the civil power, 179-81\n  hostility to, of Lutherans, 145\n  republican views of, 42, 43\n  system of Church government, 177-79\n\nCalvinism in Germany, 345\n\nCalvinists, English, tolerated by Melanchthon, 170 & _note_\n\nCamden, Lord, _cited_ in disfavour of American taxation, 55\n\nCampanella, ideal society of, 270\n\nCampeggio, Cardinal, commentary of, on Zanchini, 559\n\nCanello, _cited_ on Machiavelli's unpopularity, 226\n\nCanning, G., on the question as to who reigned, George III. or his\n  ministers, 583;\n    his wisdom, 40\n\nCapalti, Cardinal, junior President of Vatican Council, 534\n\nCapecelatro, 412\n\nCapilupi, Camillo, author of _Lo Stratagemma di Carlo IX._, 129;\n    its bearing on the position of the Cardinal of Lorraine, 130;\n    and others, on Alessandria's information as to forthcoming massacre\n  of Huguenots, 114\n  family, glorification by, of Charles IX. for the St. Bartholomew,\n  128 _et seq._\n  Hippolyto, Bishop of Fano, support given by, to Charles IX., 128-9\n\nCapito, Wolfgang Fabricius, reformer, 172, 174\n\nCapponi, friend of Doellinger, 420\n  as federalist, 414\n  Doellinger's study of, 402\n\nCapuchins, General of, and the Inquisition, 553\n\nCarbonari, supporters of, 284;\n    their impotence, 286\n\nCarcassonne, no Huguenot massacres at, 142\n\nCardinal Wiseman, 436\n\nCardinals, approval by, of the St. Bartholomew, 140\n  opposition of, to Vatican Council, 493\n  French, and absolute monarchy, 41\n\nCarena, \"_De Officio S.S. Inquisitionis_,\" valuable matter in, on the\n  Inquisition, 560\n\nCarius, works of, edited by Trent Commissioners, 215\n\nCarlstadt, Andreas, polygamy defended by, 159\n\nCarlyle, Thomas, on truth as basis of success, 223\n\nCarneades, his infusion of Greek ideas into minds of Roman statesmen, 16\n\nCarouge, and the Rouen massacre of Huguenots, 119\n\nCaspari, at Doellinger's house, 405\n\nCastagna, Papal Nuncio, 117\n\nCatechism of St. Sulpice, Lea's deductions from, 571\n\nCatherine de' Medici, Queen-Mother of France, advisers urging, to destroy\n  Coligny and his party, 108-9 & _notes_\n  challenge of, to Queen Elizabeth, 122\n  children of, trained on Machiavelli's principles, 215\n  hints of the intended massacre, 110, 111, 113-14\n  jealous for her merit in the St. Bartholomew, 130\n  levity of her religious feelings, 122\n  long premeditation by, of the massacre, 115\n  methods of, to balance Catholic and Huguenot power, 103\n  wrath of, at Gregory's demand for revocation of the edict of\n  Toleration, 137\n  on the death of her daughter, Queen of Spain, 104 & _note_\n  _cited_, 580-81\n\nCatholic attitude to Huguenot massacres, 146-8;\n    change in, how induced, 148\n  Church, _see_ Church\n  countries, revolution more frequent in, than in Protestant, and why, 278\n  Emancipation Act, spiritual fruits of, gathered by Wiseman, 437\n  legitimists and democracy, link between, 590\n  literature, phases of, last hundred years as to principles in politics\n  and science, 450-51\n  theory on the proper way to deal with heretics, discredit caused by,\n  140-41\n  use of subterfuge, 454\n\nCatholic and Protestant intolerance, difference between, 165, 168-70,\n  186-7\n\nCatholicism, in the Dark Ages, 200\n  ground lost by, since the Middle Ages, 593\n  holiness of, hated by its enemies, 437\n  identification of, with some secular cause an Ultramontane\n  peculiarity, 451\n  liberal, supposed founder of, 588\n  spreads as an institution as well as a doctrine, 246\n  tendency of, 189\n\nCatholics, English, peculiarities of their position, 438;\n    unity aimed at by them, _ib._\n  treatment of, by the Reformers, 157, 162, 163, 168, 174, 178-9\n\nCavalli, Venetian ambassador, on the bad management of the St.\n  Bartholomew, 109\n\nCelts, Gallic and British, why conquered, 241\n  the materials less than the impulse of history supplied by, 240\n\nChampel, half-burned book from, 569\n\n_Chanson de la Croisade_, 565\n\nCharacter, national, influence of, on events, limits of, 557\n\nCharlemagne, 409\n\nCharles Albert, King of Piedmont, revolution under, 285\n\nCharles I., King of England, execution of, a triumph for Royalism, 51\n\nCharles II., King of England, secret treaty between him and Louis XIV., 53\n\nCharles V., Emperor, records of reign of, 409\n\nCharles IX., King of France, active conciliation by, of Protestants, 105\n  alliances made by, with Protestant rulers, 105\n  attempts of, to appease Protestant powers after the massacre, 120\n  blamed for \"leniency,\" \"cruel clemency,\" etc., in the massacre,\n  126, 141, 143\n  Cardinal Lorraine's eulogy of, for the massacre, 112\n  civil war resulting from persecutions during his minority, 103\n  date when Catherine suggested the massacre to him, 115\n  desirous of thwarting Spain, his measures to that end, 104, 105\n  effect on his attitude to Rome of his success in crushing Huguenots, 137\n  explanations offered by, various, on the massacre, 118\n  hints dropped by, of the coming massacre, 111\n  letters of, to Rome, fate of, 101\n  letter from, to the Pope, announcing the massacre, 132;\n    reasons alleged in, 133\n  massacre of Huguenot prisoners ordered by, 141\n  methods of, in the provincial massacres, 118 _et seq._\n  Naude's Apology for its basis, 147\n  negotiations of, for Anjou's marriage with Queen Elizabeth, 105\n  Nuncio on Charles IX., tenacity of his authority, 137\n  panegyric on, by Panigarola, 125\n  personal share of, in the massacre, approved by Mendoca, 124\n  praised for his conduct as to the massacre, 112, 125, 128-9, 136,\n  140, 147\n  suppression by, of materials for history of the massacre, 121 & _note_\n  threats of Pius V. to, 139\n  tracts on his danger from Coligny, and on his joy at the massacre, 131\n  on his plan for the massacre, 117\n  death of, Sorbin's account, 126-7\n  his wife and her parentage, 105\n\nCharron, on subordination to universal reason, 46\n\nChastre, La, refuses to execute Charles IX.'s orders as to Huguenot\n  massacre at Bourges, 115\n\nChateaubriand, Marquis de, 464\n  liberalism of, discussed, 594\n  maxim of, on the timidity of the better sort of men, 582;\n    endorsed by Menou, _ib._\n  transcription by, of Salviati's despatches, 102\n\nChatham, Lord, against taxation of American colonists, 55\n\nChatillon, House of, feud of, with the Guises, 112\n\nChemnitz, Lutheran divine, on Calvinists, 145\n\nCherbuliez, the elder, on the power of abstract ideas, 585\n\nCheverus, 402\n\nChinese, stationary national character of, 241\n\nChrist, His divine sanction the true definition of the authority of\n  government, 29\n\nChristian states, constitution of the Church as model for, 192\n\nChristianity, appeal to barbarian rulers, 33\n  considered as force, not doctrine, by Doellinger, 383-7\n  in the Dark Ages, 200\n  as history, Doellinger's view of, 380\n  how employed by Constantine, 30, 31\n  influence of, on the human race, 200;\n    and on popular government, 79\n  primitive, penetration of influence over State gradual, 27\n  progress of, must be supplemented by secular power, 246, 247\n  teaching of Stoics nearest approach to that of, 24, 25\n  universality of, influence of nations on, 317-21\n  why Romans opposed establishment of, 195, 198\n  freedom in, appeal of Christianity to rulers, 33\n    effects on, of Teutonic invasion, 32\n    influence on, of feudalism, 35\n    political influence of the Reformation on, 43\n    supplying faculty of self-government in classical era, 31\n    political advances of Middle Ages due to, 39\n    rise of Guelphs and Ghibellines as affecting, 36\n    rise and progress of absolute monarchy as affecting, 41, 47, 48\n    rise of religious liberty and toleration as resulting from, 52, 53\n    rise and progress of political liberty due to, 56, 57, 58\n    sovereignty of people in Middle Ages acknowledged in consequence of, 35\n\nChristina, Queen, of Sweden, on truth, 316\n\n_Chronicle, The_, Acton's leaders in, ix\n\nChrysippus, views of, 73\n\nChurch, the, _see also_ Catholicism, Papacy, Popes, _and_ Rome attitude\n  of, to isolation of nations, 292\n    attitude of, to Wycliffe, Hus, and Luther, 271;\n      difference in their attitude to her, _ib._\n    both accepting and preparing the individual to receive, 450;\n      how she performs this, _ib._\n    censure of, ineffectual against Machiavelli's political doctrines, 218\n    condemnation of Frohschammer's book, and excommunication, 477\n    and the development of Machiavelli's policy, 225\n    difficulties of, how nourished, 455\n    Doellinger's vindication of, 404\n    effect on, of growth of feudalism, 245\n    fables of, Doellinger's investigation of, in _Papstfabeln des\n  Mittelalters_, 418-21\n    free action of, test of free constitution of State, 246\n    Goldwin Smith's unfair estimate of, 234\n    in Ireland, Goldwin Smith's views on, 259\n    great work (salvation of souls) and its subsidiaries, 448-9\n    hostility to, roused by conflicts with science and literature, 461-91\n    indebted to the barbarians for corporate position, 244\n    manifestation of, how seen, 269\n    minority in, in agreement with Doellinger, 313\n    not justified in resisting political law or scientific truth on\n  grounds of peril in either to the faith, 449 _et seq._\n    not openly attacked, eighteenth century, 273-4\n    her peculiar mission to act as channel of grace not her sole\n  mission, 448-9\n    political thoughts on, 188;\n    authority, supreme, the Church as, 192;\n    Catholicism in the \"Dark Ages,\" 200;\n    Christianity, influence of, on human race, 200;\n    divine order in the world, establishment of, 189;\n    English race, Christianity a cause of greatness of, 204;\n    liberty, influence of Christianity on, 203;\n    religion, true, definition of, 197;\n    Romans, persecution of Christians by, reasons for, 196, 198\n    position of, in State, regulation difficult, 252\n    struggle of feudalism with, 35\n    tolerance of, in early days, 186\n    view of, on government, 260\n\nChurch discipline, Bucer's system of, 172-3\n  government, under control in the modern State, 151\n\nChurch of England, internal condition of, 437-8\n  establishment, English and Irish, difference between, 259\n\nChurch and State Teutonic, quarrel between, cause of revival of\n  democracy, 80\n  relations of, 150-52, 162, 163-4\n  union of, creating Byzantine despotism, 33;\n    effect of, on paganism, 33\n  views on, of Anabaptists, 171-2;\n    Bucer, 172-3;\n    Calvin, 177 _et seq._;\n    Luther, 154, 156, 157-8, 159, 161-4, 180;\n    Melanchthon, 164 _et seq._;\n    OEcolampadius, 176-7;\n    Zwingli, 173-4;\n    Reformers in general, 181\n\nCicero, 409\n\nCienfuegos, Cardinal and Jesuit, view of, on Charles IX., 148\n\n_Circumspice_, as motto for the Catholic Church, 269\n\nCiteaux, 567\n\nCitizenship in Athens, 68\n\n\"City of the Sun,\" an ideal society described by, 270\n\nCivil authority over religious crime (_see also_ Passive obedience),\n  Beza's view, 146\n  liberty, point of unison of, with religious liberty, 151;\n    its two worst enemies, 300\n  War of America, consolidating effects of, on the Constitution, 579\n  society, its aim and end, 298\n\nCivilisation, despotism in relation to, 5, 6, 27\n  liberty the product of, 596\n  mature, liberty the fruit of, 1\n  social, unconnected with political civilisation, 243\n  in Western Europe retarded by five centuries owing to Teutonic invasion\n  and domination, 32, 33\n\n_Civilta Cattolica_, organ of Pius IX., 497\n\nClassical literature, subjects not found in, 25, 26\n\nClay, H., despondency of, as to American institutions, 579\n\nClement IV., Pope, directions of, for Inquisitors, 560\n\nClement V., Pope, decree of, on privilege of Inquisitors, deductions\n  on, of Lea, 566\n  share of, in the trial of the Templars, 563\n  _cited_ on political honesty, 214\n  publication of _Il Principe_ authorised by, 214\n\nClement VIII., Pope (Aldobrandini), testimony of, on premeditation of\n  the St Bartholomew, 114-15 & _notes_\n\nClergy, immunities of, 34;\n    unpopular in Italy, 363\n  upholders of absolute monarchy, 41\n\nClifford, Lord, acquaintance of, with Doellinger, 388\n\nColbert, admirers of, in accord with Helvetius, 220\n\nColeridge, S.T., metaphysics of, Doellinger's love for, 381\n\nColigny, Admiral de, 105;\n    death of, origin and motives of, discussed, 101 _et seq._, 117-18;\n    the story of, 106, 111 _et seq._, 118;\n    the question of its premeditation discussed, 106-7 _et seq._\n  alleged plot to kill Charles IX., 131, 135, 136\n  murderer of, 124;\n    reward of, from Philip II., 123,\n    and presented to the Pope, 144 & _note_;\n    nationality (alleged) of, 124\n\nColocza, Archbishop of, head of Council of Bishops, 1867., 499\n\nCologne, Archbishop of, loose reading of terms of the legal reform\n  of Index, 531\n\nCologne, Synod at, and infallibility, 499\n\nCommines, Philip de, on levying of taxes, 39\n\n_Commonwealth, The American_, by James Bryce, review, 575\n\nCommonwealths, founders of, 70\n\nCommunism, a subversive theory, proclaimed by Baboeuf, 273;\n    theory of its antiquity due to Critias, 17\n\nComte, Auguste, historic treatment of philosophy, 380\n\nConcordat, Austrian, failure of, 292\n\nConfederacy essential to a great democracy, 277\n\nConfederate scheme of American government, 577\n\nConference of Bayonne, resolutions inimical to Huguenots taken\n  at, 108-9 & _notes_\n\nConfession of Anjou, on the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, 107\n\nConfession of Augsburg, apology of, on excommunication, 158\n  importance of, recognised by Luther, 159\n\nConflicts with Rome, 461-91\n\nConnecticut, Blue Laws of, 55\n\nConrad, Master (of Marburg), principles inspiring, 556;\n    as confessor of St. Elizabeth, 570\n\nConscience, freedom of, a postulate of religious revolution, 153\n  in politics, expedient elasticity of, 212-14\n\n_Conservateur_, the, 594\n\nConservatism, indirect elections not always a safeguard of, 2;\n    restriction of suffrage in relation to, 96\n\nConservatism of American revolutionists, 580\n  European, 583\n\nConstance, Council of, support of, to the Inquisition, 570\n\n_Constantine, donation of_, 469;\n    political Christianity of, 30, 31\n\nConstantinople, seat of Roman Empire transferred to, 30\n  Patriarchs of, _see_ Eutychius\n\nConstitution, American, consolidated by the Civil War, 579\n    despondency of its founders as to, 579\n    Hamilton's views on, 581-3\n    not understood by Tocqueville, 576\n\nConstitution of England, Sir E. May on, 62\n\nConstitutions, evolution of, 58\n  growth of, nature of, 5\n  Periclean, characteristic of, 10\n  view of Guelph writers respecting, 36\n  how ancient, differ from modern, 19\n  mixed, difficulty of establishing and impossibility of maintaining, 20\n\nContarini, Gaspar, 214\n\nContarini, Venetian ambassador, on the expected change in France\n  (as to the Huguenots), 109\n\nConti, story of priests and the St. Bartholomew disproved, 126\n\nCooley, Judge, _cited_ by Bryce, on American liberty and government, 580\n\nCopernican system, the, derided by Luther, 160\n\nCorsica, 105\n\nCortes, Donoso, classed as ultramontane, 451\n\nCouncil of Arles and the Count of Toulouse, 565\n\nCouncil of Constance, support of, to the Inquisition, 570\n\nCouncil of Trent, 111, 138;\n    Doellinger's investigations of, 431;\n    and tradition, 513\n\nCouncil of Ten, Molino on, 213\n\nCournot, intellectual qualities of, 589\n\nCousin, Victor, 224, 588, 589\n  historic treatment of philosophy, 380\n\nCranmer, 430\n\nCreuzer, 405\n\nCritias, _cited_, 70\n  originator of notion of original communism of mankind, 17\n\nCroker, _see_ Canning\n\nCromwell, Oliver, Constitutions of, short-lived, 50\n  study of, 410\n\nCromwell, Thomas, acquaintance of, with _Il Principe_, 214\n  death of, a joy of Melanchthon, 217\n\n_Culturgeschichte_ of Hellwald, 573\n\nCumberland, expositor of Grotius, 46\n\nCusa, Cardinal of, on Christian doctrine, 514\n\n\nDaniel, historian, 588\n\nDante, Doellinger's return to study of, 433\n  key to, where found, 574\n  views of, on conscience, 562\n  and Cecco d'Ascoli, on schism, 564\n\nDanton, his action in the Reign of Terror, 266\n\nDarboy, Archbishop, on Papal Infallibility, 547\n  opposition of, at Vatican Council, 522\n\nDaru, revival by, of Hohenlohe's policy, 511\n\nDarwin, Charles, estimate of Carlyle, 223\n\nDeak on Hungarian administration, 510\n\nDecree, the first, issued to Vatican Council, 531;\n    withdrawn, 535\n\nDefoe, Daniel, on want of principle among contemporary politicians, 53\n\n\"De Haereticis,\" tract on toleration, 182\n\nDelbrueck, criticism of Macaulay's power of historical deduction, 385\n\nDelicieux, fall of, conclusions on, of Lea, 563, 564\n\nDemocracy (_see also_ Will of the People), alliance of, with despotism, 238\n  alliance of, with socialism baneful, 92, 93, 98\n  attitude to, of Aristotle, 71, 72\n  and Catholic Legitimists, link between, 590\n  curbing of, by ancient constitutions, 19\n  definition and tendencies of, 62\n  enlightened ideas of Lilburne on, 83\n  essence of, 7\n  federalism most effective check on, 98\n  in fourteenth century, 80\n  government by, danger of, 20\n  a great, in relation to self-government, 277\n  modern mistakes in true conception of, 93, 94\n  in Pennsylvania, 84\n  pervading evil of, 97\n  political writers against, 93\n  Presbyterianism and, 81, 82\n  present aim, 95\n  principles of, advocated by Pericles, 9\n  progress of, in Europe, 85\n  revival of, to what due, 80\n  ancient, partial solution of, by popular government, 79\n  Athenian, tyranny manifested by, 12\n  Swiss, 90\n\n_Democracy in Europe_, by Sir Erskine May, 61\n\nDemocratic method of Socrates, 71\n  principle, triumph of, in France, results of, 287\n\nDenifle, Father, 574\n\nDenmark, religion in, Doellinger on, 340-31\n\nDerby, Lord, cited, 189\n\nDescartes, advocate of passive obedience to kings, 48\n\nDespotic spirit, old, its two adversaries, 276\n\nDespotism after peace of Westphalia, 325\n  alliance of democracy with, 238\n  emancipation of mankind from, to what due, 24, 25\n  overpowering strength of, the doom of classical civilisation, 27\n  product of civilisation, 5, 6\n  _see also_ Absolutism\n\nDevelopment, _see also_ Progress\n  and its earlier supporters, 592\n  Flint on, topic discussed, 591, 592\n\nDiocletian's persecution of the Christians due to attempt to transform\n  Roman government into despotism of Eastern type, 30, 31\n\nDispensation, the, for the Navarre marriage long withheld, 128 & _note_;\n    price, assumed, for, ib.;\n    never granted, 131-2;\n    Charles IX.'s hope regarding, 133\n\nDivine right of freeholders established by Revolution of 1688., 54\n  of kings, principle of, led to advocacy of passive obedience, 47\n  of the people, 36, _see also_ Will of the People with respect to\n  election of monarch, 35\n\nDivine order in the world, establishment of, 189\n\nDjakovar, Bishop of, on validity of Vatican Council's decrees, 549\n\nDoctrine, danger from, motive for religious persecution in pagan\n  and mediaeval times, 251\n\nDogma, Commission on, at Vatican Council, election and proceedings\n  of, 529-31\n\nDolcino, two versions of the story of, 555, 568\n\nDoellinger, Dr. J.J. Ignatius von, his attacks on Papal Infallibility,\n  538, 545;\n    on episcopal authority, in Council, 545\n  character of, 403\n  declaration of, on papal necessity for temporal power, 312-13\n  fame of, 463\n  historical insight of, limitations of, 409-10\n  judgments of, compared to Moehler's, 378;\n    their gentleness, 410\n  influences acting upon, earlier and later studies, intercourse,\n  literatures, etc.--evolution due to--375-6, 379-82, 383, 386-9,\n  392-3, 399;\n    later views of, 396, 425-36\n  later life of, 399\n  and Moehler in Munich, views at variance, 377-80\n  politics and their interest for, 400-403\n  reliance of scholars on, in theological difficulties, 382-3\n  silence of followers of, 313-15\n  style of, 375-435; own estimate of, 432;\n    views on, and methods of, 383, 385, 389-92\n  tract attributed to, on Infallibility, 512, 513\n  value as historian of the Church, 408-10\n  views of, compared to Moehler's, 378-9;\n    on temporal power, 301-74\n  visits of, to Oxford, 403; to Rome, 410-14\n  Works by--\n    _Church History_, interpretations of, 379-435;\n      source of, 386;\n      new edition of, refused by, 392-3\n    _Heidenthum und Judenthum_, publication of, 405-7\n    _Hippolytus und Kallistus_, publication of, 404-5\n    _Kirche und Kirchen_, argument of, 414-18;\n      description of, 384-6;\n      source of, 386;\n      preface to, _cited_ on temporal authority of the Church, 303-12;\n      purpose of, 371-4\n    _Papstfabeln des Mittetalters_, spurious authority of the Church,\n  418-21\n    _Philosophumena_, vindication of Rome, after publication of, by, 404\n    _Reformation_, preparation for, 392-4;\n      publication of, 394;\n      ridiculed in Rome, 411;\n      style of, 393-7\n    _cited on_ attitude of Pius IX. and the Council, 371\n      character of Pius IX., 365-6\n      Council of Trent, 432\n      England's attitude to temporal power of Pope, 415\n      German loyalty to the Church, 370-71\n      Luther, 397\n      mistaken judgments of youth, 429\n      St. Dominic, 428\n      the temporal power of the Pope, 414-15\n\nDominicans, the, theology of, discountenanced, 498\n\nDominis, De, 432\n\nDorner, 389\n\nDort, Canons of, 580\n\nDoyle, 402\n\nDuchesne, Abbe, 400, 574\n  on the idea of development, and what impeded its acceptance, 592-3\n\nDupanloup, 400, 425;\n    opposition of, at Vatican Council, 522, 526\n  defence of Syllabus by, 424\n  opposition of, to Papal temporal power, 412\n\nDuperron, Cardinal, on Arianism, apparent, in St. Irenaeus and Tertullian,\n  592\n\nDuplessis-Mornay, forebodings of, as to Huguenot perils, 107\n\nDutch independence due to maritime successes, 103\n\nDynastic interest, dominant in old European system, 273\n  at the Congress of Vienna, 283\n\n\nEbrard, Doellinger's opinion of work of, 420\n\nEcclesiastical authority, functions of its office, 460\n\nEchard, authority on the Inquisition, 554\n  book by, on St. Thomas, pages by another, printed in, 558-9\n\nEckstein, character of, 400\n\nEcole des Chartes, pupils of, methods of, 561\n\nEcole Francaise, 574\n\nEdessa, Archbishop of, at commission of preparation for Vatican Council,\n  500\n\nEdict of Nantes, Revocation of, an inconsistency, 170\n    not approved by Innocent XI., 147\n    remarks on, 260\n  of Pacification, 108\n  of Toleration, deceitful, of Charles IX., 117, 135\n\nElections, indirect, 97;\n   not always a safeguard of conservatism, 2\n\nElizabeth, Queen of England, Catherine de' Medici's challenge to a\n  massacre of Catholics, 122\n  Doellinger's lenient view of, 410\n  murder of, sanctioned by Pius V., 139\n  not alienated by Charles IX.'s Huguenot massacres, 120\n  proposed league of, for Protestant defence, Lutheran protest, 145\n\nElizabeth of Valois, first wife of Philip II. of Spain, fate of,\n  104 & _note_\n\nEllicott, Dr., Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, on Lamennais's theory, 593\n\nEmerson, R.W., on attitude of the best Americans to politics, 578\n\nEncyclical, the, of 1846, Infallibility proclaimed in, 496\n\nEngland, an exception to the common law of dynastic States till 1745., 274\n  indignation in, at the idea of development in religion, 591\n  Inquisition never admitted into, 59\n  status of kings in, Canning on, 583-4\n  under the Stuarts, Church and liberty in, 208\n\nEnglish Catholics, peculiarities of their position, 438;\n    Wiseman's personal relations with, 437, 438\n  legal system, pioneer work of Jeremy Bentham in reform of, 3\n  liberty, adversary of the despotic policy, 276\n  nation, endurance of, and supremacy of, in art of labour, 60\n    foremost in battle for liberty, 59\n    views of, on the Huguenot massacres, 144\n  race, Christianity a cause of greatness of, 204\n  writers, Doellinger's acquaintance with, 388\n\nEntremont, Countess, marriage of, with Coligny, Salviati's denunciation\n  on, 110\n\nEoetvoes on lay interest in religious government, 510\n\nEphialtes and democracy, 68\n\nEpictetus, 406\n\nEpicurus on purpose of foundation of societies, 18\n\nEquality, passion for, in France, 57, 58\n  subversive theory proclaimed by Rousseau, 273;\n    making French Revolution (1789) disastrous to liberty, 88\n  of fortune, and class interests, 69\n  political, observations on the right to, 262\n\nErasmus, his idea of renovating society on the principles of\n  self-sacrifice, 58\n\nErhle, Father, 552, 560, 574\n\nEssenes, disappearance of, 66\n  idea of renovating society on the principles of self-sacrifice, 58\n  slavery, both in principle and practice, rejected by, 26\n\nEthical offices of the Church not exclusively hers, 448-9\n\nEthnology and Geography united, in relation to security of free\n  institutions, Mill on, 286\n\nEudaemon-Johannes, praise given by, to the St. Bartholomew, 147\n\nEugenius IV., Pope, election of, 355\n\nEuphemus, _cited_, 70\n\nEurope, attitude of, to the French massacre of Huguenots, 120. 124-5;\n    progress of democracy in, 85;\n    theory of Nationality in, how awakened, 275\n  civilised, to what its preservation is due according to Lea, 568\n  Latin, frequency in, of revolution, 278;\n    its object, 280-81\n  Western, retrogression in arts and sciences due to domination of\n  Teutons, 32, 33\n    the two conquests of, and their effects on social ideas, 278 _et seq._\n\nEuropean liberalism and conservatism, 582-3\n  system, the old, reigning families, not nationalities, dominant in, 273\n\nEutychius, Lea's remarks on, challenged, 563\n\nExcommunication, of Frohschammer, 477\n  what it involves, according to the confession of Schmalkald, etc., 158\n\nEymeric, author of the _Directorium_, President of Arragonese tribunal\n  against heretics, 558, 559\n\n\nFables of the Church (_Papstfabeln des Mittelalters_), Doellinger's\n  investigations of, 418-21\n\nFaenza, why menaced by Pius V., 137\n\nFaith not to be kept with heretics, Catholic theory on, 140-41\n\nFalloux, value of, as historian, 400\n  opposition of, to Montalembert, 425\n\nFalse principles, place of, in social life of nations, 272\n\nFantuzzi, compiler of history, 387\n\nFarel, death of Servetus approved by, 185\n\nFarnese, Cardinal, _see_ Paul III., Pope\n\nFatalism, philosophy of historians, 221\n\nFauriel, 565\n\nFederal government, views on, of Hamilton, 581-3\n\nFederalism, most effective check on democracy, 98;\n    value of, 20\n\n_Federalist, The_, by Alexander Hamilton, various views on, 581\n\nFederal form of American constitution, said not to be understood by\n  Tocqueville, 576\n\nFenelon, his idea of renovating society\n  on the principles of self-sacrifice, 58\n  on absolutism, 433\n  on domains as dowries, 273\n  on national distress, 49\n\nFerdinand I., Doellinger's lenient estimate of, 410\n\nFerdinand II., Doellinger's lenient estimate of, 410\n\nFerralz, despatches of, on attitude of Roman Court to the St. Bartholomew,\n  unused, 102\n  quarrels of, with the Cardinal of Lorraine, 129\n  true particulars of the Navarre marriage according to, 131-2\n  on the attitude of Gregory XIII. on hearing of the St. Bartholomew,\n  132-3 _note_\n\nFerrara, Alfonso, Duke of, a massacre of Huguenots advised by (1564),\n  108 & _note_\n\nFerrari, 590;\n    Doellinger's tribute to, 417\n  on Machiavelli's character, 226\n\nFerrier, Du, Catherine de' Medici's words to, on the death of the Queen\n  of Spain and the massacre of St. Bartholomew, 104\n\nFerrieres, 122\n\nFessler, _see_ St. Poelten, Bishop of\n\nFeudalism, alien to the sentiment of France, 279\n  growth of, 34;\n    effect on Church, 245\n  struggles of, with the Church, 34, 35\n\nFeuerlein, Machiavelli's loyalty upheld by, 229\n  on political expediency, 224\n\nFichte, J.S., _cited_ in praise of Machiavelli's policy, 228\n\nFicker, Prof., account by, of the Inquisition, 426\n  on the real contriver of the Inquisition's rule by terror, 555\n\nFirst Empire, the French, things most oppressed by, the causes of\n  its downfall, 281\n\nFischer, Kuno, trace of Machiavelli in metaphysics of, 228\n\nFisher, John, Bishop of Rochester, on persecution, 570\n\nFlaminian Gate, ancient custom connected with, 136\n\nFlaminius, works of, edited by Trent Commissioners, 215\n\nFleury, style of, Doellinger's compared to, 381\n\nFlint, Professor Robert, 572;\n    _Historical Philosophy in France and French Belgium and\n  Switzerland_, review, 588\n  critical faculty strong in, 591\n  nature of his superiority as writer, 588-9;\n    some defects, 589-90\n\nFlorence, prepared for the St. Bartholomew, 109\n\nFontana, authority on the Inquisition, 554\n\nForbes (Bishop of Brechin), Doellinger's intimacy with, 416\n\nForce replaced by opinion as Catholic tribunal, 148\n\nForeign rulers, objection to, as third cause of popular risings, 284\n\nForgery, Church authority supported by 511, 513\n\nFormosus, 563\n\nFors de Bearn, the, 566\n\n\"Fourth Estate,\" rise of, 67\n\nFox, Charles James, 54\n\nFrance, absolute monarchy in, 48;\n   how built up, 41\n  the Church in, and Protestantism, Doellinger on, 337\n  democratic principle in, its triumph the cause of the energy of the\n  national theory, 287\n  feudalism alien to, 279\n  Gallican theory in, with respect to reigning houses, 35\n  governed by Paris during Revolution of 1789., 88\n  of history, how, and why, it fell, 277\n  inherent absence of political freedom and presence of absolutism\n  in, 237-40\n  kingdom of, how evolved, 278\n  opposition in, to Lamennais's Ultramontanism, 463-4\n  passion in, for equality, 57, 158\n  political ideas concerning, of Charles IX., and of Richelieu, 116\n  removal of Papacy to, 370\n  and representation on Vatican Council, 504-5\n  \"the slave of heretics\" according to Pius V., 105\n  restored monarchy of, _see_ Restoration\n\nFranchi at Council of Bishops in 1867., 499\n\nFrancis Joseph, Emperor of Austria, in 1859., 287\n\nFranciscan masters, the, and the idea of development in religion, 592\n\nFranciscans, General of, on the planned character of the St.\n  Bartholomew, 124\n  struggle of Avignon with, 552\n\nFranklin, Benjamin, irreligious tone of, 584\n\nFranks, preamble of the Salic law of, 200\n\nFranzelin on commission of preparation for Vatican Council, 500\n\nFrederic the Great and Machiavelli's political schemes, 227\n  ignorant opposition of, to Machiavelli's works, 218\n\nFrederic II., Emperor, treaty of, with the Church, 555\n  Lombard law of, 152;\n    its provisions, 555, 556\n\nFree institutions, a generally necessary condition for securing,\n  Mill on, 286\n\nFreedom (_see also_ Liberty) accorded to English Catholics, 438\n  in antiquity--\n    age of Pericles, 9\n    antiquity of liberty, modernity of despotism, 5\n    cause of liberty benefited more under Roman Empire than under\n    Republic, 15\n    dangers of monarchy, of aristocracy and democracy, 19, 20\n    decline of Athenian constitution, 11\n    definition of liberty, 3\n    early communism and utilitarianism, 17, 18\n    emancipation by Stoics of mankind from despotic rule, 24\n    guiding principle of Roman Republic, 13\n    highest teaching of classical civilisation powerless to avert\n    despotism, 27\n    history of institutions often deceptive and illusive, 2\n    implicit opposition of Stoics to principle of slavery, 25, 26\n    influence of Christianity over the State, gradual, 27\n    infusion of Greek ideas of statesmanship among Romans, 16\n    liberty, highest political end, 22, 23, 24\n    limitation and excess in duties of State, 4\n    method of growth of constitution, 5\n    nature of government of Israelites, 4\n    object of constitutions, 10\n    reform in English legal system instituted by Jeremy Bentham, 3\n    representative government, emancipation of slaves, and liberty of\n    conscience not a subject of classical literature, 25, 26\n    revision of laws of Athens by Solon, 6\n    sanction of Christ the true definition of the authority of\n    government, 29\n    teaching of Plato and Aristotle respecting politics, 22\n    teaching of Pythagoras and Heraclitus of Ephesus, 21, 22\n    triumphs due to minorities, 1, 4\n    value of federalism, 20\n    vice of the Classic State, 16\n    wisest minds among the ancients tainted with perverted morality, 18\n\nFreedom in Christianity, history of--\n  Christianity employed by Constantine to strengthen his empire, 30, 31\n  civil, its two worst enemies, 300\n  conscience, a postulate of religious revolution, 153\n\nFreeholders, \"divine right of,\" established by Revolution of 1688, 54\n\nFreeman, Doellinger on, as a historian, 421\n  on Mommsen's want of generous sentiment, 222\n\n_French Belgium_, see _Historical Philosophy in France and French Belgium\n  and Switzerland_\n\nFrench Catholics, reasons of their confusion between piety and\n  ferocity, 141\n  clergy, and the St. Bartholomew, 126-7 & _notes_\n  monarchy, aid of the democracy in establishing and in demolishing,\n  reasons for both, 278-80\n  people, attitude of, to and after the Huguenot massacres, 143 _et seq._\n  how regarded after the Revolution, 277\n  provincial massacres of Huguenots, 118-19, 134\n  writers, influence of, on Doellinger, 387\n  scholarship, dependence on, of Mr. H.C. Lea, 558\n\nFrench Republic of 1848, of what school the triumph, 590\n\nFrench Revolution, _see_ Revolution, French\n\nFrohschammer, 473-7\n  conflict with Rome, 462, 467, 469, 473-483\n\nFulcodius, Cardinal, _see_ Clement IV.\n\nFulda, council of bishops at, 517\n\nFunds of the Church, proposed disposal of, in Italy, 509\n\n\nGallicanism, corruption of Christianity, 463, 524\n  Lamennais's crusade against, 464\n  theory of, on reigning houses in France, 35\n\nGams, 429; defender of the Inquisition, 573\n\nGanganelli, Cardinal, influence of, on Doellinger, 434\n\nGaspary, _cited_ on Machiavelli's loyalty, 230\n\nGass, on St. Anthony's life and origin of monasticism, 420\n\nGaul, Roman, tolerance in, of absolutism, 279\n\n_Gazette de France_ and universal suffrage, 590\n\nGeneva, trial of Servetus at, 184\n\nGenlis, Huguenot commander, defeat of, the consequences to Coligny,\n  116, 117, 141\n\nGenoa, extinction of, as State, 283\n\nGentz _cited_ on Machiavelli's policy, 229\n\nGeorge III., King of England, 583\n\nGeorge IV., King of England, 583\n\nGerman, or Teutonic, conquest of Europe, its consequences, 277 _et seq._\n  writers, as influencing Doellinger, 389\n\nGermany, effect on, of the massacre of St. Bartholomew, 124, 143\n  Protestantism in (1572), 103\n  theology of, unique and scientific, 317, 347-351, 376, 471-482\n  union of, 225\n  and the Vatican Council--\n    circular of German bishops to, 517\n    opposition in, 503;\n      and to Infallibility, 500;\n      representation of, 505\n\nGerson, 562; _cited_, 191\n\nGervinus, G.G.. on Machiavelli as prophet of modern politics, 229\n\nGhibellines, political theory of, 37\n\nGibbon, Edward, 389\n\nGieseler, Doellinger's dislike of, 389, and estimate of, 404\n\nGinoulhiac, on Papal Infallibility, 540\n  on Strossmayer's influence, 536\n\nGioberti, followers of, 314\n  metaphysics of, Doellinger's love for, 381\n\nGirondists, objects of, 263\n\nGladstone, W.E., Acton's admiration for, xxiii;\n    and Doellinger, letter to, on the Irish question, 434;\n    estimate of historical judgment and style, 416;\n    intercourse of, 400\n  policy of, feared in Rome, 507\n\nGlencoe, massacre of, 218, 410\n\nGneist, 377\n\nGonzaga, Lewis, _see_ Nevers\n\nGoerres, Joseph, 282, 405\n  centre of Munich group of theologians, 386\n\nGoettingen, 378;\n    seminary pupils of, methods of, 561\n\nGovernment, authority of, defined by Divine sanction of Christ, 29\n  Catholic view of, 260\n  chief duty of, to maintain political right, 449\n  American, Judge Cooley on, 580\n\nGracchus, opposition to Octavius, 76\n\nGrant, General Ulysses, 579\n\nGranvelle, Cardinal, Viceroy of Naples, on the massacre of St.\n  Bartholomew, 125, 140;\n    on Alva's prisoners, 142\n\nGratian, 557\n\nGratry, letters of, to the Archbishop of Mechlin, on divisions in\n  the Church, 537-8\n  on the Inquisition, 424\n  tribute from, to Doellinger, 424\n  _cited_ on Veuillot's school, 429\n\nGreece, national beliefs yielding to doubt during age of Pericles, 8, 9\n  politics of, infused into minds of Roman statesmen, 16\n\nGreek Church, development of, 332-3\n  revolution, causes united in, 284\n\nGreeks, democracy of, 66\n  as makers of history, 240\n  slavery discouraged by, 63\n\nGregory VII., Pope, deception of, by hierarchical fictions, 420\n  and democracy, 80\n  his disparagement of civil authorities, 36\n\nGregory IX., Pope, 430\n  appointed Guala as first Inquisitor, 553\n  Lea's view of, as intellectual originator of the Inquisition, 555, 557\n\nGregory X., Pope, and the Inquisition, 426\n\nGregory XIII., Pope, 430\n  and the Massacre of St. Bartholomew--\n    Bull of, on, 101, 134\n    complicity of, discussed, 128\n    fate of his letters to France, 101\n    previous knowledge of, 110, 116\n    receipt of the news by, his public and private attitude, and his\n    reply, 132-5, 137\n    urges full and complete extirpation of Huguenots, 142\n    conduct as viewed by French and by Italians, 148\n    reply, 137\n    undue hatred of, consequent on his attitude to the matter, 138\n  and the Navarre marriage, his steady opposition, 105, 111, 113, 128\n  on destruction as result of sedition, 216\n\nGregory XVI., Pope, personal fallibility of, admitted, and denounced by\n  Lamennais, 465, 466\n\nGrenoble, Bishop of, doctrine of Papal Infallibility admitted by, 528\n  excluded from Commission on Dogma, 530\n  on dogmatic decrees of the Vatican Council, 533\n\nGrey, Lord, 219\n\nGrotius, 432; days of, 225\n  founder of study of real political science, 46\n  on the principles of law, 46\n\nGuala, Bishop of Brescia, successor of Moneta and St. Dominic, 553\n  and the burning of heretics. 555-6\n\nGuelphs, political theory of, 36\n\nGuicciardini, Francesco, abridged by Trent Commissioners, 215\n\nGuidonis, Bernardus, frequently cited by Lea, 568\n  leading authority of the fourteenth century, 559\n  _Practitia_ of, 558\n  protests of, on Clement V.'s decree on privilege of Inquisitors, 566\n\nGuise, Duke of, initiative of, in the massacre of St. Bartholomew, 112\n  recalled to France, 213\n  slain by Henry III. of France, 121\n\nGuise, House of, 112, 118\n\nGuizot, 400\n  on the eighteenth century, 585\n  on Hamilton's work _The Federalist_, 581\n  on importance, to all denominations, of the Vatican Council, 493\n  wisdom of, 401\n\nGuenther, 473\n\nGurney, Archer, alarm of, at Doellinger's views, 382\n\nGuyon on the murder of heretics, 147\n\n\n_Habeas Corpus_ Act, principle originated in Middle Ages, 39\n\nHabsburg family, contests of, 274\n\nHalifax Archbishop of (Conolly), on the dogmatic decree, 533\n  opposition of, at Vatican Council, 522\n  on Scriptural authority, 547\n\nHalifax, George Savile, Lord, 53\n\nHallam, Henry, favourable comparison of theory of _Il Principe_ with\n  other political theories, 224\n\nHamilton, Alexander, eulogised, 581-3\n  history, treatment of philosophy, 380\n  political example of, 586\n  views of, as cited by Bryce, 578\n\nHarnack, estimate of Doellinger, 434\n\nHarrington, political writer in advance of his time, 51\n\nHartwig, 230\n\nHase, Prof. K., _cited_ on political expediency, view of, on importance\n  of Vatican Council to all denominations, 493\n\nHaureau, _Histoire Litteraire_ by, divergence from, of Lea, 558, 563\n\nHavet, 555\n\nHaynald, Archbishop of Colocza, at Council of Bishops, 1867, 499\n\nHefele, defender of the Inquisition, 573\n  estimate by, of Doellinger, 434\n  on Papal Infallibility, 540, 544\n  on validity of dicta of Vatican Council, 548\n\nHegel, Carl, friend of Doellinger, 420\n\nHegel, G.W.F., 589, 590\n  definition by, of universal history, 224\n  as enemy of religion, Doellinger's disparaging view of, 376, 381\n  master of Cousin, 589\n  posthumous work of, 385\n  view of, on Development of Liberty, 596\n\nHenry III., King of France (_see also_ Anjou. Duke of), 44, 580\n  Doellinger's lenient estimate of, 410\n  hopes of his destroying the Huguenots root and branch, 142;\n    urged on him by Muzio, 143\n  and the murder of the Guises, 121, 213\n  reliance of, on _Il Principe_, 215\n\nHenry IV., King of France, _see_ Navarre, King of\n\nHeraclitus, of Ephesus, on the supremacy of reason and divine origin of\n  laws, 21, 22\n\nHerbert, _cited_ to show Machiavelli's sacrifice to unity, 229\n\nHerder, J.G., 375\n  on _Il Principe_, 228\n\nHeresy (_see also_ Intolerance, Persecution, _and_ Toleration), books\n  on, definition of, by the Archbishop of Cologne, 531\n  Calvin's views on punishment, 181;\n  its famous refutation, 182\n  causes of, in Frohschammer, 481\n  dependent on the State, 317\n  laws of Frederic II. on, 152, 555\n  punishable by death, doctrine of the Church, 216-19\n  methods of dealing with the Reformers _cited_ on, 154, 157, 163-164,\n  166, 167, 175, 181, 183\n\nHeretics, attitude towards, of St. Dominic, 554\n  Catholic theory on the proper way to deal with, 569;\n    discredit incurred from, 140-41\n  a prominent dissentient, 144\n  divisions among, 103\n  first proscribed in Aragon, 557-58\n  murder of, Guyon on, 147\n\nHermann, reliance of Doellinger on authority of, 403\n\nHermas, 406\n\nHermes and followers denied the power of _the Index_, 473\n\nHesse, Landgrave of, bigamy of, why condoned by Luther, 160 & _note_\n\nHindoos, stationary national character of, 241\n\nHistorians, qualities of, revealed by use made of their authorities, 235\n  scientific, method of, how differing from that of artist and annalist,\n  233\n\n_Historical Philosophy in France and French Belgium and Switzerland_,\n  by Robert Flint, _review_, 588\n\nHistory, deductions of, Doellinger's theory, 389-92;\n    not drawn from moral standards, 219-21\n  Doellinger's work in, 375-435\n  equity of, deductions drawn from action, 219\n  God seen in, 594\n  no conscience in, Hartwig's opinion of, 230\n  teaching of, Doellinger's desertion of theology for, 379-83\n  theory of, Doellinger's view, 385\n\n_History, A, of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages_, by Henry Charles Lea,\n  review, 551\n\nHobbes, Thomas, advocate of passive obedience to kings, 48\n  and Machiavelli's policy, 228\n\nHoefler, 434\n\nHogendorp, on the American Revolution and the decline of religion in\n  America (circ. 1784), 584\n\nHohenlohe, Prince, defeat of his policy, 511\n  defeated by Ultramontanes, 505\n  Doellinger secretary to, 385\n  opposed to discussion of Infallibility at Vatican Council, 503-4\n\nHohenzollern, house of, contests of Silesia with, 275\n\nHolland, _see also_ Low Countries and Netherlands, declares for the\n  Prince of Orange, 103\n  republican, an exception to common law of dynastic states, 274\n\nHolst on Hamilton's genius, 581\n  _Verfassungsgeschichte_, by, 577\n\nHoly Alliance, originated by Baader, 377;\n    the devotion of, to absolutist interests, 282;\n    and to suppression of the revolution and national spirit, 283\n\n_Home and Foreign Review, The_, action concerning, of Wiseman, 439-40;\n    deprecated, 440 et seq.;\n    his complaints investigated, 442-43;\n    and replied to, 443-44;\n    how Wiseman came to misconceive the words of the Review, 444 _et seq._;\n    position on which the Review was founded, 447, 457;\n    sphere of such a publication delimited, 448-56;\n    topics excluded from its purview, 457;\n    its aid to religion indirect but valuable, 459;\n    attitude of, on supreme authority of the Church, 482-91\n\nHonorius III., Pope, characterisation by, of Gregory IX., 556\n  the Inquisition extant under, 554\n  and the Lombard law for burning heretics, 556\n\nHooker's _Ecclesiastical Polity_, 45\n\nHosius, Cardinal, opposition of, to Beza, concerning the Polish\n  Socinians, 146\n\nHoetzl, Father, support of Doellinger, 545\n\nHouse of Commons, the, and the Inquisition, 570\n\nHuguenots, expulsion of from Switzerland, 125\n  massacres of, in Paris and the provinces, 106, _and see_ Massacre\n  of St. Bartholomew _passim_\n  position of, in 1572, and apparent prospects, 102\n  views of, on the massacres of co-religionists, 145-46\n\nHumboldt, W. von, 282\n\nHume, David, 54; _cited_ on _Il Principe_, 218\n\nHungary, Church constitution of 1869., 510\n  growing autonomy of, 526\n\nHuns, stationary national character of, 241\n\nHus, John, difference between his teaching and Luther's, 271\n  trial of, 552, 570;\n    a test case, 572;\n    Lea's puzzling views on, 573\n\n\nIdeals, energy evoked by, why greater than in case of rational ends, 272\n  usefulness of, 272;\n    how limited, 273\n\nIdeas, abstract, more powerful than practical, views on cited, 585\n\n_Il Principe_ (Machiavelli's), dedication of, 215\n  Nourrisson's praise of, 227\n  Pole's attention called to, 214\n  publication of, 214;\n    interpretation of, by all later history, 213;\n    known to Pole and Cromwell, 214\n  various criticisms of, 218\n\nImmaculate Conception, doctrine of, Archbishop of St. Louis on, 545\n\nIncome Tax, known in Middle Ages, 39\n\nIndependent congregations, advocacy of toleration by, 52\n\n_Index_, the Church's instrument of preventing scandal by literature,\n  469-471\n  institution and origin of, 215, 495\n  permanent exclusion of _Il Principe_ by, 215\n  power of, in Germany, 473\n  reform of, urged on and effected by the Vatican Council, 495, 525, 531\n  sanction of, 544\n\nIndifference, religious, of educated Protestants, 350-51\n\nIndulgences granted by Pius V., in connection with war against the\n  heretics, 141\n\nInfallibility, Papal--\n  attitude to, of Lamennais, 462-4, 465, 466\n  Bavarian warning against adoption of, by Vatican Council, 511\n  _Civilta Cattolica_ on, 500-501\n  continental discussions on, 518\n  debate on, at Vatican Council, 532-549\n  declaration of, urged on Vatican Council, 499\n  definition of, not to be made, by Vatican Council, 518\n  discussion and definition of, by Vatican Council, 525-49\n  doctrine of the Jesuits, 498;\n  establishment of, Vatican Council, 499\n  opinions in England, on discussion of, at Vatican Council, 507\n  opposition to, 502-4\n  origin of doctrine of, 513-515\n  to be presented at Vatican Council, 500-501\n  proposed by Cardoni at commission of preparation for Vatican Council, 500\n\nInfidelity, growth of, due to intolerance, 256\n\nInnocent III., commonly reported as founder of the Inquisition, 553;\n    intolerance of, 431\n  treatment of heretics, 568\n\nInnocent IV., Pope, _cited_, 206\n\nInnocent X., Pope, protest against Peace of Westphalia, 324-25\n\nInnocent XI., Doellinger's proposed history of, 433\n\nInnocent XI., Pope, and the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, 147\n\nInquisition, the, earlier and later, distinction between aims and\n  characteristics of, 552\n  Lea's view on, 568\n  Machiavelli denounced to, 214-15\n  never admitted into England, 59\n  origin of, controversy on, 553\n  period of its activity and decline, 574\n  problem of, 570\n  sanction of, 544\n  in Spain, 152\n  supporters of, 570\n  tribunal of, appropriation by Spanish kings leading to absolute\n  monarchy, 41\n  at Vienna, 184\n  writers defending, 573\n  _Inquisition, The, of the Middle Ages, A History of_, by Henry Charles\n  Lea, review, 551\n\n_Institutes_, Calvin's, on Toleration, 182\n\nInsurrections previous to 1789, wherein differing from the French\n  Revolution, 271\n\nIntellectual offices of the Church not exclusively hers, 448-9\n\nInternational league of nations founded by Mazzini, 286\n\nIntolerance carried to an extreme by the Anabaptists, 172\n  Catholic and Protestant, distinguished, 165, 168-70, 186-7\n  cause of growth of infidelity, 256\n  inherent in the Mediaeval Church, Leas view, 571\n  motive and principle of, when justifiable, 251\n  of Reformers, 184\n  as a rule of life, Lea's view on, 562-3\n\nIreland, Church in, Goldwin Smith's views on, 259\n  Celtic race in, yielding to higher political aptitude of the\n  English, 242\n  failure of Reformation in, 43\n  history of, comparative method of, study of, 234\n  land question, the great difficulty in, 236\n  question of, Doellinger's views on, 434\n  religious disabilities in, an engine of political oppression, 253\n  and Ultramontanism at Vatican Council, 507\n\nIrish agitation, causes united in, 284\n\nIsraelites, democracy of the, 65\n  government of, exhibiting principle upon which freedom has been won, 4, 5\n  a federation held together by faith and race, 4\n  resistance of monarchy among, by prophet Samuel, 4\n\nItalian States (1862), nationality in, 295\n\nItaly, Austrian rule in, error of, 285\n  effect on, of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, 124, 143\n  literature of, influence on Doellinger, 386-7\n  policy of, under Machiavelli and before, use of assassination, 213\n  politics of, influenced by Vatican Council, 508-511\n  reliance in, on Machiavelli, 226\n  Machiavelli's triumph, 225, 266\n  temporal power of papacy in, 355-62, 367-71\n  wisdom of Huguenot massacres confessed, 125\n\nIvan the Terrible. Czar of Muscovy, protests of, on the St.\n  Bartholomew, 144\n\n\nJackson, Andrew, American President, 578\n\nJacobins, policy of, criticism of, 261\n\nJames II., King of England, 54, 410\n  overthrow imperative, 468\n\nJanus, 519; book on Ultramontane ideal, 511, 513\n\nJefferson, Thomas, President, U.S.A., 579\n  irreligion of, 585\n\nJesuit attitude to the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, 1, 127, 147, 148\n\nJesuits, the, and infallibility, 498\n  and preparations for Vatican Council, 497-98\n\nJews, _see also_ Israelites\n  treatment of, by Catholics, 169;\n    and by Protestants, 164, 179\n\nJoachim, Abbot, and his work, 560\n\nJoan of Arc, 552;\n    authorities on, not consulted by Lea, 558\n\nJohn Of Salisbury, 45;\n    reputed author of the _Historia Pontificalis_, 559\n\nJoubert, on authority of the Church, 463\n\nJudae, Leo, views of, as to persecution, 174\n\nJulian, apostate, reasons for persecution by, 196\n\nJulius Caesar, conversion by, of Roman republic into monarchy, 15\n\nJuergens, his estimate of Luther, 161\n\nJustification by faith, dogma of, as test of orthodoxy, 158\n\nJustin, summit reached by, 406\n\nJustinian, code of, greatest obstacle to liberty next to feudalism, 79\n  on the absolute authority of the Roman Emperor, 31\n\n\nKolde, effect of works of, 408\n\nKampschulte, effect of works of, 408\n\nKant, Immanuel, 594\n\nKaulbach, pictorial ridicule of Doellinger's _Reformation_, 411\n\nKenrick, on Papal infallibility, 540, 544\n\nKetteler, W.E. von, Doellinger's lectures praised by, 381\n  on Papal infallibility, 540, 544\n\nKings, status of, in England, Canning on, 583-84\n\nKirchmann on political ethics, 222\n  _cited_ on the adoption of Machiavelli's policy, 227-28\n\nKlein. J.L., _cited_ on Machiavelli's moral purpose, 229\n\nKleutgen, garbled version of Strossmayer's protest, 542\n\nKliefoth, influence on Doellinger, 389\n  work on penitential system, 381\n\nKnowledge, growth of, freedom of, in the Church, 461\n\nKnox, John, 44\n  \"Monstrous Regiment of Women,\" 45\n\n\nLaboulaye, indictment against democracy, 93\n\nLabour, supremacy of English nation in art of, 60\n\nLacordaire, Henry, advice of, ignored by Montalembert, 400\n  _cited_ on political honesty, 220\n  Doellinger antagonistic to, 401\n  on St. Dominic, 428\n\nLafayette, 590\n\nLa Farina, tribute to Machiavelli, 226\n\nLamennais and the Church, condemnation and fall, and cause of the\n  latter, 398, 465, 466-73\n  conflict with Rome, 462-473\n  classed as Ultramontane, 451\n  endeavours of, to exalt Rome, 463-4\n  intercourse of, with Doellinger, 398\n  and the idea of development, 591, 593\n  theory of common sense, 593\n\nLand question, the great difficulty in Ireland, 236\n\nLanguedoc, work in, of St. Dominic, 553\n\nLanza, 509\n\nLa Roche-sur-Yon, on the resolutions of the conference of Bayonne,\n  108 & _notes_\n\nLarroque, Tamizey de, rejection by, of Arnaud's speech at Beziers, 567\n\nLasaulx, Ernst von, estimation of, 405\n\nLassalle, Ferdinand, on collective thought, 585\n\nLaurent, 590;\n    Doellinger's praise of, 417\n    _cited_ on Machiavelli's doctrines, followed by detractors, 226\n\nLaval, Bishop of, opposition of, at Vatican Council, 522\n\nLavradeo, Count de, Portuguese ambassador to Vatican Council, 507\n\nLavaur, fate of Albigenses at, 556\n\nLaw, custom and national qualities, not will of government, makers of, 58\n  mediaeval opinions on, 258\n  in relation to the will of the people, Vergniaud on, 276\n\nLaws (_see also_ Legal system), divine origin of, 22\n  of realm, Socratic view that they were only sure guide of conduct, 18\n  view of Ghibelline writers respecting, 37\n  view of Guelph writers respecting, 36\n\nLay representation on Vatican Council, plans for, 503-8\n\nLea, Henry Charles, _A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages_,\n  review, 551\n  characteristics of, 555, 559, _passim_;\n    as historical writer, 551\n\nLeague, the, Charles IX.'s refusal to join, 129\n\nLeague, Holy, attempts to bring France into, 113\n\nLe Blanc de Beaulieu on political expediency, 225\n\nLecoy de la Marche, collection, 559\n\nLee, murder of, note on, 65\n\nLegal system, English, pioneer work in reform of, of Jeremy Bentham, 3\n\n'_Leges Barbarorum_,' principle of, in respect to the Church, 244\n\nLegislation, liberty independent of domain of, 2\n\nLegitimate ruler, defence of, first cause of popular risings, 1813., 284\n\nLeibniz, Doellinger's gratitude to, 393\n  on _Il Principe_, 228\n  influence of, on Doellinger, 381\n\nLeo I., Pope, and the suppression of heresy at any cost, 571\n\nLeo X. (Medici), Pope, character of, 378\n  treatment of tyrant of Perugia, 214\n\nLeo XIII., Pope, literary fruits of his liberality, 573-4\n\nLeopold, 401\n\nLepanto, naval battle of, 104;\n    effect foiled by Charles IX., 105\n  victory of, less dear to the Pope than the Massacre of St.\n  Bartholomew, 134\n\nLeti, _cited_, 140\n\nLewis XII., king of France, extermination of Vaudois of Provence by, 217\n\nLewis XIII., king of France, Doellinger's lenient estimate of, 410\n\nLewis XIV., king of France, death penalty by, indicted for disobedience\n  to his will, 48\n  Doellinger's lectures on, 433\n  ordinance against Protestants, 50\n  as political assassin, 410\n  records of reign of, 409\n  secret treaty between, and Charles II., 53\n  supreme among tyrants for bad use of his power, 49;\n  adulation bestowed on him sign of national subjection to absolutism, 49\n\nL'Hopital, 126\n\nLiberal movement in Latin Europe, its objects, 280-81\n\nLiberalism, European, 582-3\n\nLiberals, eighteenth century, their care only for the individual, 273\n  of the French Restoration, limitations of, 282\n\nLiberty (_see also_ Freedom), change in constitution not effected by, in\n  Italy and Germany, 225\n  definition of, 3\n  and democracy, 63\n  essential condition and guardian of, religion, 4\n  essential to the subsistence of a country, Rousseau on, 294\n  failure of Protestant systems to secure, 181\n  influences of Christianity on, 203\n  Luther's attitude to, 156\n  and property, connection between, 54\n  realisation of, on what depended, 288\n  reconciled to religion, dispute concerning, 467-9\n  theory of, as regards nationality, 289\n  religion and nationality, causes united in revolutions after 1815., 284\n  sacrificed to unity, by Machiavelli, 229\n  views on, of Hegel, and of Flint, 596\n  vulgar definition of, 580\n\nLiberty, American, Judge Cooley on, 580\n  civil and religious, point of unison between, 151\n  English, adversary of old despotic policy, 276\n  English, adversary of former despotic power, 276\n  municipal, vigorous growth of, in Belgium, 38\n  religious, definition of, 151-2\n  effect on, of State control, 151-3\n  in Maryland, 187\n  necessary conditions of, 152-3\n  not impossible, 367\n\nLiddon, Canon, intimacy with Doellinger, 416\n\nLiebig, 377\n\nLightfoot (Bishop of Durham), Church history of, 418\n\nLilburne, political writer in advance of his time, 50;\n   his enlightened ideas on democracy, 83\n\nLimborch, 563\n\nLipsius, R.A., study of Machiavelli by, 215\n\nLisle, Ambrose de, 423\n\nLittre, 590\n\nLocke, John, 54\n  doctrine of resistance, 54\n  inconsistent ideas regarding liberty, 53\n  on rules of morality, 221\n\nLombard law of Frederick II., as affecting heretics, 152, 555, 556\n\nLombardy, the heresy of (Waldensian), 559\n  work of St. Dominic in, 553\n\nLongperier, _cited_, on Italy's adoption of Machiavelli's policy, 227\n\nLorraine, Cardinal of (Guise), on Anjou's hatred of Protestants and its\n  consequences, 105 _& note_\n  approval expressed by, of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, 140\n  high position of, 111;\n    on his initiative in the Huguenot massacre, his praise of Charles IX.,\n    112 _& note_;\n    complicity of, in the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, 129-30\n    quarrels with, of Ferralz, 129;\n    its reason, the Pope's attitude to him, 130\n  on the price of the Navarre marriage, 128\n  slain by Henry III., attitude of the Pope, 121\n\nLouis XVI., king of France, policy of, 57\n  powerlessness of, to effect reform, 85\n  why he perished, 280\n\nLouis Philippe, king of the French, his good opinion of republican\n  government, 56, 90\n  decline of his popularity, 92\n\nLove of country, Bossuet on, 294 _note_\n\nLow Countries (_see also_ Holland _and_ Netherlands), Alva's failure\n  in, 103\n\nLoyola, Ignatius, founder of the Society of Jesus, 113\n\nLuca, Cardinal de, proposed discussion of infallibility at Vatican\n  Council denied by, 518\n  Reisach's deputy as president, 534\n\nLucchesini, sermon against Machiavelli, 215\n\nLucius, attack of, on Philo, 419\n\nLuther, Martin, 502\n  attitude of, to the marriage difficulties of Henry VIII., 160\n  and the bigamy of Philip of Hesse, 160\n  Doellinger's estimate of, 397\n  early utterances of, on toleration, 153-5;\n    his change of view, 155\n  influence of, on politics, 81\n  Moehler on, 378\n  persecuting principles involved in his system, 164, 590\n  teaching of, wherein differing from that of Wycliffe and of Hus, 271\n  views of, on government, 42;\n    on polygamy, 159, 162;\n    on the relations of Church and Slate, 156, 157-58, 161-63, 173,\n  177, 180;\n    logical outcome of his theory, 159;\n    its inconsistency, 162;\n    work of, on the Civil Power, 154 & _note_;\n    _cited_ on toleration of Anabaptists, 157\n\nLutheran attitude to heretics, gradual change in, 154, 157\n    to Huguenots, 145-6\n  theory of persecution, political element in, 172\n\nLutheranism, decline of, 327-9\n  in Denmark, 341\n  description of, 343-5\n  national character of, 319-320\n  roused by abuses in the Church, 495\n  in Sweden, 341\n\nLyons, massacre of Huguenots at, 119;\n    news of, sent to Rome, 132;\n    horror aroused by, in Provence, 144;\n    letter from, on the massacres at that place, 131\n\n\nMacaulay, T.B., 580\n  historical limitation of, 385\n  injustice of Doellinger to, 391-2\n  opinion of, on Father Paul, 432\n  on the study of history, 232\n\nMachiavelli, Niccolo (_see also_ Il Principe), character of, 225-6;\n    its complexity, 212-14\n  crime of Catherine de' Medici not instigated by, 216\n  denouncement of, to Inquisition, by Muzio, 214-15\n  doctrine of, 40, 41;\n    impulse given by, to absolutism, 41\n  influence on succeeding generations, 40, 41;\n    political, 49;\n    held by rulers before and since, 216-19;\n    estimated by early historians, 225-231\n  ignorance of, displayed by great men, 218-19\n  indulgent views taken of methods of, 224\n  Medici patron and his daughter, 122\n  merits of, admitted by later historians, 230-231\n  methods of, 225-6\n  secret patriotism of, upheld by various historians, 229-230\n  in touch with reasoners and imitators, by theory of success, 223\n  zenith of power, 225-7\n\nMackintosh, Sir James, on constitutions, 581\n\nMacmaster, on Hamilton's genius, 581\n\nMadison, James, 579\n  on Hamilton's theory of government, 581\n\nMaffei, on regicide, 217\n\nMagdeburg, Archbishop of, _temp._ Gregory IX., 556\n\nMai, Cardinal, as an editor, 421\n\nMaimbourg, 215\n\nMaine, Sir Henry, on the _Droit du Seigneur_, 566-7\n\nMaistre, Count de, Ultramontane writer, 451, 468;\n    on the authority of the Church, 377\n  and Lamennais's theory, 593\n  relation to Savigny, 593\n  exaggerations of, 378\n  influence on Doellinger, 377\n  interpreted by elder Windischmann, 381\n  rank of, as writer, 417\n  thoughts of, on Nationality, 282 & _note_\n\nMalebranche, 382\n\nMalvenda, authority on the Inquisition, 554\n\nMamachi, authority on the Inquisition, 554\n\nMandelot, Governor of Lyons, and the Huguenot massacres, 119\n\nManin, Daniele, 287\n\nManning, Cardinal, Archbishop of Westminster, adviser of De Angelis, 529\n  on admission of papal infallibility by acknowledgment of supreme\n  authority, 543-4\n\nManteuffel, administration of, 283\n\nManzoni on temporal power of Papacy, 512\n\nMarat, madness of, 401\n  outcome of Rousseau's teaching on his policy, 57, 58\n\nMaret, book of, on Vatican Council plans, 512, 513\n  opposition of, at Vatican Council, 426\n  and papal infallibility, 528\n\nMariana, rejoicing of, over the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, 124\n  _cited_ on death of Henry III., 217\n\nMarini, as a compiler of history, 387\n  occasional removal of, from _Index_, 215\n\nMarlborough, Duke of (the Great), character of, 53\n\nMarseilles, Bishop of, on validity of Vatican Council's decrees, 549\n\nMarsilius of Padua, the Ghibelline,\n  views of, on power and persecution, 561-2\n  _cited_ on the relation of kings to the people, 37\n\nMarshall, John, 579;\n    and the development of the American Constitution, 581\n\nMartens, 427\n\nMartensen, Bishop, estimate of Doellinger, 434\n  tribute to Baader's powers, 376\n\nMartineau, Dr., and Mill's opinion of results as test of actions, 223\n\nMary Tudor, Queen of England, 410\n\nMaryland, religious history of, 187\n\nMassachusetts, history of, contrasted with that of Maryland, 187\n\nMassacre, the, of St. Bartholomew, 101\n  defects in plan and execution of, as judged by immediate results, 106;\n    sources of the same, 117\n  defence of, on political grounds, 218\n  Doellinger's work on, 430-31\n  evidence concerning, how dealt with, difficult of access, 101;\n    best existing sources, 102\n  motive inspiring its chief author, 121\n  question of numbers slain in, 106, 137\n  question of premeditation of, contemporary view, 106;\n    modern view, 107;\n    evidence in support of the former, 107 _et seq._\n  results anticipated from, 69;\n    Philip II., 123;\n    view not stated by Alva, 124\n\nMassillon, Jean-Baptiste, _cited_ on retribution, 220\n\nMathieu, Cardinal, share in elections to Commission of Dogma, 529, 530, 532\n\nMatter, cited on Machiavelli's influence on liberty, 227\n\nMaurenbrecher, rank of Doellinger estimated by, 386\n\nMaurer, Conrad, at Doellinger's house, 405\n\nMaximillian II., Emperor, information sent to, of the Massacre of\n  St. Bartholomew, 107\n  opinion of, on the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, 144\n  toleration of, 105\n  urged to follow example of Charles IX., 134 & _note_\n\nMay, Sir Erskine, _Democracy in Europe_, by, 61\n\nMazade, influence on Doellinger, 434\n\nMazzini, Giuseppe, association of, with the growth of the idea of\n  Nationality, 286\n  association of his revolutionary ideas with conservatism of Niebuhr, 59\n  on Machiavelli's politics, 219\n  proclaimer of Nationality, 273\n  profane criticism by, 218\n\nMazzuchelli, 114\n\nMechlin, Archbishop of, reply to the Bishop of Orleans by, 537\n\nMedici, Cosmo de', patron of Machiavelli, father of Catherine, 122\n  family of, in disfavour under Paul III., 214\n    Machiavelli not countenanced by followers of, 214\n\nMediaeval writers on law and right, 258\n\nMelanchthon, Philip, his theory of persecution, 164-170\n  views of, on polygamy, and the bigamy of Philip of Hesse, 160 & _note_\n  on religious assassination, 325\n  _cited on_ Cromwell's death, 217\n\nMemorandum of the Powers, 183;\n    on temporal power, 366\n\nMenabrea, circular of, on representation of Vatican Council, 509\n\nMendoca, praise of those concerned in the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, 124\n\nMentz, Bishop of, belief in infallibility doctrine, 518\n\nMerode, 414\n\nMetternich, Prince, 283;\n    attitude of, to Nationality, 285\n\nMetz, Bishop of, repudiation of Doellinger's declaration, 538\n\nMexico, nationality in, 245-46\n\nMeyer, Paul, on the Council of Arles, 565\n\nMichelet, Jules, Flint compared to, 596\n  _cited_ on human action as interpreter of God's commands, 223\n    on Machiavelli, 213\n  influence on Doellinger, 433\n  Doellinger's study of, 421\n\nMichiel, Giovanni, Venetian ambassador, 109;\n    on premeditation of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, 110\n\nMiddle Ages, authority of State inadequate in, 4\n  decline of religion in, 595\n  history of, reason for its unity, 244\n  political advances in, 39\n  persecution in, 152, 168\n  revival of study of, 390-91\n\n_Middle Ages, The, A History of the_\n  _Inquisition of_, by Henry Charles Lea, review, 551\n\nMignet, Doellinger's praise of, 417\n\nMilan, Archbishop of, on validity of Vatican Council's decrees, 549\n\nMill, John Stuart, indictment of democracy, 93\n  on results as tests of actions, 223\n  on states as coincident with nationalities, 285\n\nMilton, John, his justification of execution of Charles I., 51\n\nMinerve, fate of Albigenses at, 556\n\nModena, 386\n\nMohammedans, treatment of, by Catholics, 169;\n    by Protestants, 179;\n    their tolerance, 186\n\nMoehler, J.A., 593\n  influence on Doellinger's views of fixity of national types, 434\n  publication of _Symbolik_, 377\n  on the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, 149\n  suggested history of progress of doctrine of, 385\n  _cited_ on Doellinger's rank as theologian, 379\n  _cited_ on intercourse with Doellinger, 377\n  partiality as historian of religious wars, 428\n  rank of, 430\n  views of, compared to Doellinger's, 378-9\n  _cited_ on Luther, 378-9\n\nMoehler and Doellinger in Munich, views at variance, 377-380\n\nMolina, Luis, 380\n\nMolinier, Auguste, on a history of the Inquisition, 551-2\n  rejection by, of Arnaud's speech at Beziers, 567\n\nMolino, Francesco da, cited on the recall of the Guises, 213\n\nMommsen, Theodor, cited on political expediency, 222\n  distinction of pupils of, 419\n  indifference of the public to, 430\n\nMonarchy--\n    adulation manifested towards, after the Middle Ages, 48\n    danger of, 19, 20\n    and democracy, 64\n    limitation of powers, aim of modern constitutions, 19\n    resistance of, among Israelites, justified in later ages, 4\n    restricted suffrage not always a safeguard of, 2\n  Absolute--\n    clergy upholders of, 41\n    development and destruction of, by the democracy in France,\n    & _notes_, 279-80\n    France chief centre of, 48\n    one of the worst enemies of civil freedom, 300\n\nMonarchs, election and deposition of, divine right of people with\n  respect to, 35\n  Guelphic and Ghibelline views respecting, 36, 37\n  subjection of, to public law, 35\n\nMondoucet, French agent at Brussels, Charles IX.'s letter to, on the\n  proposed Massacre, 117\n\nMoneta, Fra, successor of St. Dominic, 553\n\nMonluc, Bishop of Valenca, dying speech of, its bitterness against\n  Huguenots, 141\n  on the effect of the Huguenot massacres on Poland, 120\n  view of, on St. Bartholomew, 107\n\nMonroe, James, President, his term of office \"the era of good feeling,\" 56\n\nMons, fall of, 103;\n    Lewis of Nassau at, 105\n  the garrison devoted to death by Charles IX. and Philip II., 141-2\n\nMontaigne, Michel de, view held by, on Machiavelli's fame, 215\n\nMontalembert, Count de, classed as Ultramontane, 451\n  influence of, on Doellinger, 400\n  intercourse unbroken, 463\n  unacknowledged agreement with Doellinger, 316\n  and _Kirche und Kirchen_, views cited, 417;\n    estimate of that work, 424\n  in Munich, 398\n  opposition of, at Vatican Council, 524-5\n  politics of, 400\n  and the temporal power of the Papacy, 412\n\nMontalto, Cardinal, alleged dissent of from congratulation on the\n  St. Bartholomew, 140\n\nMontegut, influence on Doellinger, 434\n\nMontesquieu, and his development of Locke's teaching, 54\n\nMontezuma, and Torquemada, resemblance between the gods of, 569\n\nMontferaud, Sieur de, rumoured orders\n  to, as to massacre of Huguenots, 127 _note_\n\nMontfort and the Albigenses, 556\n\nMontgomery and the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, 107, 122\n\nMontpensier, Duke of, Huguenot massacres ordered by, in Brittany, 119\n  unguarded speech by, on coming massacre, 111\n\nMontpezat, Lieutenant of Guienne, and the Bordeaux massacres, 127\n\nMorality, perverted ideas of, prevailing among classic sages, 18\n  public, how differing from private, 40\n\nMordenti, _cited_ on Machiavelli, as champion of conscience, 226\n\nMore, Sir Thomas, author of the Utopia, 270\n  idea of renovating society on the principles of self-sacrifice, 58\n\n_Mores Catholici_, Digby's, 569\n\nMorinus _cited_, 194\n  basis of Kliefoth's work in, 381\n\nMorley, John, on equity of history, 219\n\nMornay, _see_ Duplessis-Mornay\n\nMorris of Exeter, and study of Petavius, 380\n\nMorris, Robert, an American, the suggester of the French wars of\n  speculation and plunder, 578\n  _cited_ on Hamilton as a leader, 582-3\n\nMorvilliers, Bishop of Orleans, attitude of, to the Massacre of\n  St. Bartholomew, 126\n\nMozley, James, visit of Doellinger to, 403\n\nMuenscher, works of, esteemed by Doellinger, 381\n\nMueller, 282\n\nMunich, Archbishop of (Reisach), brief from the Pope to, denouncing\n  Frohschammer, 481-5\n  nominated as President of Vatican Council, 501;\n    death of, before taking seat as, 534\n\nMunich, conference at, Doellinger's declaration to, 312-13\n  Doellinger at, 386;\n    lectures in, 375\n  Frohschammer's work in, 473\n  Moehler with Doellinger in, 377-80\n  school of theology at, 398-9, 434\n\nMunicipal liberties, vigorous growth in Belgium, 38\n\nMuenster (Westphalia), excesses of Anabaptists at, 171\n\nMuenzer, Thomas, intolerance of, 171\n\nMuratori, Doellinger's study of, 387\n  on evangelists, 419\n  papal biographies by, 559\n  and the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, 148\n\nMurder (_see also_ Assassination, Heretics, and Persecution), on plea\n  of religion, attitude to, of Rome, 138, 139, 140, 147\n\nMuretus, 101; famous speech of, on the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, 130\n\nMuzio, the _Decamerone_ recommended to students by, 215\n  in favour with Pius V., 214-15\n  letter from, to Henry III. of France, urging unsparing extirpation\n  of Huguenots, 143\n  Machiavelli denounced by, to the Inquisition, 214-15\n\nMylius, view of, on the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, 107\n\n\nNantes, city, refusal of, to massacre Huguenots, 119\n  edict of, revocation of, not approved by Innocent XI., 147;\n    inconsistency, 170;\n    remarks on, 260\n\nNapoleon I., causes of his downfall, 281, 284\n  new power called into existence by, 281\n  question respecting the durability of his institutions, 238\n  _cited_ on importance of results, 221\n  _cited_ on quality of endurance in English nation, 66\n\nNapoleon III., ambition of, 316\n  and discussion of infallibility doctrine at Vatican Council, 504\n\nNassau, Lewis of, at Mons, French auxiliaries with, 105\n\nNational character, influence of, on events, units of, 557\n  claims, based on race only, futility of, an instance, 295\n\nNationality, essay on, 270\n  auxiliary and substance of present-day revolution, 276\n  denial of, what it implies, 297\n  evolution of, three stages in, 284-5;\n  and definition of, in its final form, 285\n  idea of, as influencing modern thought greater than that of liberty, 59\n  modern theory of, greatest advocate of rights of, 297\n  historical importance of, its two chief causes, 298, 299\n  how awakened in Europe, 273, 275, 276;\n  its parentage, 277, 286, 287;\n  how first seen, 278, 281, 286\n  mission of, in the world, 300\n  more absurd and criminal than that of Socialism, 300\n  political character and value of, discussed, 280 _et seq._\n  a retrograde step in history, 298\n  rights of, and greatest adversary of, 297\n  some of its first supporters, 281-2\n  a subversive theory, 273\n  summing up of, 287-8\n  political theory of, in contradiction with the historic nation, 243\n  the true, 294, 295\n\nNations, different, in one State, considerations regarding, 289 _et seq._\n\nNaude, basis of his apology for Charles IX., 147\n\nNavarre, Henry, King of, later Henry IV., King of France, 44\n  marriage of, with Margaret of Valois, opposed by the Popes, 105,\n  109, 111, 128;\n    real facts regarding, 131-3;\n    representations on, of Charles IX. and his mother, 135;\n    dissolution of, by Paul V., 114\n  murder of, schemed as a good deed, 139\n  and the proposed league of Protestant defence, 145\n\nNavarre, Queen of (Margaret of Valois), death of, reckoned on in\n  France, 109, and _see_ Marriage, under Navarre, Henry, King of\n\nNeander, rank of, 421\n  special gifts of, 555\n  unconventionally of, 384\n\nNelson, 592\n\nNetherlands (_see also_ Holland _and_ Low Countries), deposition of\n  Philip II., and establishment of republic, 44\n  republic of, inaugurated reign of law through freedom of press, 50\n\nNevers, Duke of (Lewis Gonzaga), high station of, 128\n  share of, in the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, 110;\n    his \"ill-timed generosity\" on this occasion, 122;\n    praises of, by Capilupi, 129\n\nNewman, John Henry, Cardinal, 573, 592, 593\n  distinction drawn between Pope and Court, 417\n  Doellinger's early appreciation of, 395;\n    intercourse with, 402\n  Napoleon III. not condemned by, 413\n  theory of development different from Doellinger's, 407-8\n  _cited_ on papal authority, 423\n\nNicholas I., 431\n\nNiebuhr, 581;\n    association of his conservatism with revolutionary ideas of Mazzini, 59\n  Doellinger's gratitude to, 393\n\nNimes, Bishop of, on infallibility, 515;\n    opposed to discussion of, 501\n\nNimes (city), no Huguenot massacres at, 143\n\nNippold, rank of Doellinger estimated by, 386\n\nNourrison cited on Machiavelli's sincerity, 227\n\nNugent, Count, proclamation by, on Italian independence, 285\n\nNuremberg, Anabaptists at, 157\n\n\nOctavius, opposition of Gracchus to, 76\n\nOdescalchi, character of, 433\n\nOEcolampadius, Joannes, opinions of, on Church government, 176-7\n\nOllivier, opposition of, to French lay representation in Vatican\n  Council, 504\n\nOrange, Prince of (William the Silent), 44\n  alliance made with, by Charles IX., 105\n  declaration for (1572), of province of Holland, 103\n  Huguenot expedition to aid, failure of results, 116, 141\n  not alienated by Charles IX.'s Huguenot massacres, 120\n\n_Origines de la France Contemporaine_, 569\n\nOrleans, Bishop of, attitude of, to papal infallibility, 228,\n  316, 515, 523, 524\n  at Council of Bishops, 1867., 500\n  patriotism of (1862), 445\n  permission refused to, for publication of reply to the Archbishop\n  of Mechlin, 537\n  promotion of Vatican Council by, 493\n  unacknowledged agreement with Doellinger, 316\n  on validity of Vatican Council's decrees, 549\n  Orleans, city of, horrors of Huguenot massacre at, 124\n  Orleans dynasty, result of appeal from, in 1848., 590\n\nOrsi, Doellinger's tribute to, 387\n\nOrsini, Cardinal, Legatine mission of, to France, his instructions, 137;\n    Charles IX.'s representations to him, 138\n\nOscott, Wiseman's work as President of, 438\n\nOsiander, Andreas, _cited_ on toleration, 157\n\nOssat, D' 114 & _note_\n\nOverbeck, on Epistle to Diognetus, 420\n\nOxford movement, Doellinger told of, by Brewer. 402\n  Wiseman's influence on, 438\n\n\nPaderborn, Bishop of, on infallibility of Pope, 518\n\nPaine, Thomas, 585;\n  citation of, from _Rights of Man_, on the confusion of political\n  forms with political liberty, 238\n\nPallavicini, Theiner on, 431\n\nPanhellenism, 284\n\nPanigarola, panegyric by, on Charles IX., 125\n\nPanslavism, rise of, 284\n\nPapacy, the, acknowledgment of small principalities of Italy, 355\n  based on organic development, 321-4\n  and the Byzantine Empire, 353\n  extraordinary notions of Godwin Smith on the, 267\n  future of, 367-70\n  government of, reform in, 363-5\n  reform of, attempted by Pius IX., Doellinger on, 365\n  removal to France, a challenge to schism, 370\n  temporal power of, _see_ Temporal power\n\nPapal Legations rescued from Austria at the Congress of Vienna, 283\n  See, confusion between direct and indirect authority of, 256\n  struggle with the Franciscans, 552\n\nPapinian, _cited_ on political progress, 79\n\nParamo, 428\n\nParis, attitude hostile to the Huguenots, 116, 117\n  attitude after the murder of Coligny and Massacre of St. Bartholomew\n  in, 106, 126, _and see both heads_\n  France governed by, during revolution of 1789, 88\n  Mendoca's praise of its Catholic inhabitants, 124\n  Archbishop of, cardinals hat refused for, by Pius IX., 526\n    career of, 526\n    character of, 326\n    French representation on Vatican Council urged by, 505\n    on Papal infallibility, 532\n    on validity of Vatican Council's decrees, 549\n  university of, and the Inquisition, 570\n\nParis, Matthew, Lea's authorities on, 558\n\nParliamentary corruption in America, past and present, 578\n  government, primitive republicanism the germ of, 32\n\nParma, centre of historical work, 387\n  (1862) nationality in, 292\n\nPartition of Poland, _see under_ Poland\n\nPascal, Blaise, advocate of passive obedience to kings, 48\n  _cited_ on varying standards of right and wrong, 220\n\nPassaglia, fame of, 413\n  on papal liberty, 313\n  reputation of, 502\n\nPassive obedience to the State, doctrine upheld by theologians and\n  philosophers, 47, 48\n  taught by Luther, 156, 161, 180;\n    asserted by Calvin, 180-81\n\n_Patrie_, French newspaper, criticism by, of Wiseman's address at Rome,\n  439, 443, 444, 445;\n    his reply, 439\n\nPaul, Father, 432\n\nPaul III., Pope (Cardinal Farnese), hatred of the Medici family, 214;\n    letter from Sadolet, praising the extermination of the Vaudois, 217\n\nPaul V., Pope (Borghese), aware of premeditated Huguenot massacre, 114\n\nPeace of St. Germains, as affecting French Huguenots, 105;\n    alarmist views on, held by Salvati, 110\n\nPeasants' war, the, in Germany, attitude of Luther towards, 155, 156\n  & _note_, 162\n\nPegna, Arragonese origin of, 558, 560\n  character of works of, 428\n\nPelleve, Cardinal, Archbishop of Sens, on the premeditation of a massacre\n  of Huguenots, 111\n\nPeloponnesian war, influence of, on Athens, 69\n\nPenn, William, 410;\n    follower of doctrine of toleration, 84\n\nPennaforte, home of St. Raymond, 556\n\nPennsylvania, democratic constitution of, 84\n\nPeople, _see also_ Democracy _and_ Will of the People\n  sovereignty of, idea of parent of idea of Nationality, 277\n  wishes, etc., of, as criterion of right, teaching on, of the French\n  Revolution as to, 271\n\nPercin, authority on the Inquisition, 554\n  German ignorance of, 428\n\nPeresius, on Bible inspiration, 514\n\nPerez, Antonio, accusation by, of\n\nPhilip II. of Spain, 104\n\nPericles and democracy, 9, 68\n  effort to prevent predominance of any particular interest in\n  politics, 10\n\nPerronne, on biblical critics, 514\n  on commission of preparation for Vatican Council, 500\n  hostility to Passaglia, 413\n  rank of, 417\n\nPersecution, attitude to, of Marsilius, 562\n  by Catholics, principles of, 168-170, 186\n  by heathen Rome, justified on political grounds, 186\n  mediaeval, justification of, 254\n  method of escaping from imposition of religious disabilities, 250\n  natural stage in the progress of society, 250\n  Protestant theory of, 150;\n    the book by H.C. Lea, review, inadequate as history of, 574\n  reasons for and against, as a political principle, 252\n  some noted supporters of, 570\n  Spain and Sweden contrasted, 170\n  two propositions regarding, 572-3\n\nPersian wars, influence of, 67\n\nPersians, makers of history, 240\n\nPetavius (s.j.) and the idea of development in religion, 591, 592\n  Doellinger's early study of, 379\n  Doellinger's gratitude to, 393\n  Morris of Exeter advised to read, 380\n\nPeter Martyr, death of Servetus approved by, 185\n\nPetrucci, communications of, forecasting the Massacre of St.\n  Bartholomew, 109\n  mysticism of, 376\n\nPhilip II., king of Spain, aid of, essential to crush French Huguenots, 104\n  the St. Bartholomew massacre urged by, 116-17\n  orders from, for slaughter of Alva's Huguenot prisoners, 142\n  revolt against, of the Netherlands, 44\n\nPhilo of Alexandria, Lucius's attacks on, 420\n  on customs of the Essenes, 26\n\nPhilosophers, doctrine of passive obedience, upheld by, 48\n  schemes of, for ideal societies, why never realised, 270-71\n\nPiatti, apologist of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, 148\n\nPiedmontese government and the Papacy, 368-9\n\nPilgrim fathers, belief of, not influencing the American revolution, 584-5\n\nPistoja, on treatment of heretics in Rome under Pius V., 138\n\nPitra, influence of, in France, 404\n\nPius IV., Pope, Bull _Multiplices inter_, published by, 520-25\n\nPius V., Pope, blessing given by, to war against Huguenots, 141\n  denunciatory letter from, to court of France, 110\n  patron of Muzio, 214-15\n  previous information of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew supplied\n  to, 130-31\n  strong anti-Protestant views of, 138-9\n  on the peace of St. Germains, 105\n\nPius VII., Pope, destruction of church of France by, 323\n  influence on Doellinger, 402\n  _cited_ on Papal authority, 323\n\nPius IX., Pope, alarm of dissenting bishops allayed by, 519\n  Archbishop of Paris rebuked by, 526\n  brief of, to the Archbishop of Munich, censuring Frohschammer, 481-5\n  character of, described by Doellinger, 365-6\n  confidence in the support of the bishops at the discussion of Papal\n  infallibility, 523-4\n  on Doellinger's _Kirche und Kirchen_, 415\n  on the infallibility of the Pope, 496\n  personal popularity of, 497\n  quarrel with Russia, 493\n  reform of excommunication laws, 531\n  treatment of Doellinger, 411\n  Vatican Council convened and prepared for by, 492-511\n  obstinacy in management of Vatican Council, 532\n  reforms of, 402\n  refusal of permission to Theiner to publish acts of Council of Trent, 431\n  and Vatican Council, Doellinger's estimate of, 431\n  veneration of, spell broken by protesting bishops, 531\n\nPlanck, Moehler's address to, 378\n\nPlantagenet, house of, claims backed by Rome against house of Bruce, 35\n\nPlantier, authority on Louis Philippe, 402\n\nPlaten, diaries of, description of Doellinger's early studies in, 375\n\nPlato, _Laws_, 22\n  on class interests, 69, 71\n  opinions of, 71\n  not without perverted notions of morality, 18\n  _Republic_ of, 270\n\nPlebeians, Roman, struggle with aristocracy, 13, 14\n\nPlotinus, ideal society of, 270\n\nPlutarch, religious knowledge of, 406\n\nPoland, 105;\n    Anjou as candidate for throne of, 105;\n    prospects of, after the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, 144\n  an exception to common law of dynastic States, 274;\n    and why, 275;\n    the consequence, the partition, 275\n  extinction of, 283\n  government of, and the Reformation, 43\n  partition of, awakening theory of nationality in Europe, 275\n  religious toleration in sixteenth century, 103\n  republic of, nature, 49\n  Socinians in, Beza's hostility to, 146\n  wrath in, at the Huguenot massacres, 120\n\nPole, Cardinal, _Il Principe_ brought to notice of, 214\n  _cited_ on political scruples, 219\n\nPolish exiles, why always champions of national movements, 286\n  Protestants, strength and unity of, 103\n  revolution, causes united in, 284\n\nPolitical corruption, Hamilton's paradox on, 581\n  disorders, distribution supersedes concentration of power as remedy\n  against, under Solon, 7\n  equality at Athens, 68\n  forms, confusion with popular rights, 238\n  freedom inherently absent in France, 237-40\n  habits and ideas special to particular nations, varying in the\n  national history, 297\n  intelligence, not culture, the test of a conquering race, 242\n  liberty in modern times the fruit of self-government, 253\n  life a sign of true patriotism, 293\n  opposition to Vatican Council, absence of, 511\n  power should be in proportion to public service, 8\n  observance of this principle at Athens, 8\n  principles, obligation of, essentials for understanding, 458\n  science, America's rank in, its exponents, 578\n  theory of nationality in contradiction with the historic notion, 243\n  thoughts on the Church, 188\n\nPolitics, attitude to, of the best Americans, 578\n  conscience in, expedient elasticity of, 212-14\n  contemporary, Doellinger's part in, 400-403\n  honesty in, approved by great men, 219-23;\n    not always expedient, 219-21;\n    opinions of Pope Clement, 214;\n    Machiavelli, 212;\n    Michelet, 213;\n    Molino, 213;\n    Sarpi, 213;\n    Soto, 213\n  laws of, rest on experience, 391\n  liberty highest end of, 22, 23, 24\n  Machiavellian, tribute to, 219\n  principles of, high teaching regarding, in Plato's _Laws_ and\n  Aristotle's _Polities_, 22\n  retribution in, 220-23\n  science of, impartial study, unknown in seventeenth century, 43-46;\n    impartial study originated by Grotius, 46\n\nPolitics and science, authority of, now re-established, extent of, 453;\n    discoveries and principles of, how generally judged, 454\n\nPolygamy, attitude of reformers to, 159, 160\n\nPontiac, price on head of, 213\n\nPope, the, and the court, Lamennais's distinction between, 464-5\n  intervention of, between state and sovereign, 257\n\nPopes, the (Medicean), unofficial countenance of Machiavelli, 214\n\nPopular rights, confusion of political forms with, 238\n\nPopulation, masses of, not benefited by liberty of subject, 94\n  relief of, aim of modern democracy, 95\n\nPorrette, Marguerite, 558, 568\n\nPortugal, lay representative of, on Vatican Council, 507\n\nPostel, 382\n\nPotomac, army of, 579\n\nPraetorius, 432\n\nPresbyterianism, democratic element in, 81, 82\n  Doellinger's sketch of, 336-7\n\nPrescott, W., 569\n\nPress, freedom of, in Netherlands Republic inaugurated reign of law, 50\n\nPrinciples, false, place of, in social life of nations, 272\n  political, obligation of, essentials for understanding, 458\n  touchstone and watershed of, 454\n\nPrinciples and interests, relative importance of, 449\n\nPriscillian, fate of, Lea's view on, 572\n\nProperty, liberty and connection between, 54\n\nProtagoras _cited_, 70\n\nProtestant authorities, use made of, by the Ultramontanes, 451-2\n  Church government, agitation for reform in Prussia, 347\n  establishment, its views on government, 260\n  Reformers, _see_ Reformers\n  \"Protestant Theory, The, of Persecution,\" 150, & _see_ 254, 255, 576\n    involved in Luther's teaching, 164\n    developed by Melanchthon, 164 _et seq._\n    carried to an extreme by the Anabaptists, 172\n    carried out by Calvin, 178;\n      and defended by Beza, 183\n    continued in Massachusetts, 187\n    characteristics of, 168-70\n    failure of, 187\n    Zwinglian varieties of, 174 _et seq._\n\nProtestantism, aversion of, to freedom, 240\n  and the civil power, 150, 159, 161, 181\n  decline of, in Northern Europe, Doellinger's description of, 342-51\n  Doellinger's survey of, 302-303\n  final acceptance by, of toleration, 187\n  friendly feeling of Doellinger towards, 396-7\n  growth of, 325-52\n  and the later mediaeval sects, essential difference between, 271\n  never successful in France, 595\n  toleration as, cause and effect of its decline, 255\n\nProtestants, the, _see also_ Huguenots and Lutherans\n  as cats' paws of France against Spain, 105-16\n  ordinance of Louis XIV. against, and their action, 50\n  position and apparent prospects of (1572), 102\n  English, unanimity amongst, 189\n  Polish, unity and strength among, 103\n\nProvincial massacres of Huguenots, 105\n\nPrussia, nationality shown in the opposition to Napoleon I., 281\n\nPrynne, on study of records, 393\n\nPufendorf, expositor of Grotius' doctrines, 46\n\nPurgatory, release from (_see_ Indulgences), obtainable from the Pope,\n  belief in, 495\n\nPuritans in America, intolerance of, 187\n\nPusey, Dr., Doellinger's letters to, 395-6\n  in favour of Vatican Council, 493\n\nPuygaillard, mission of, to ensure provincial massacres of Huguenots,\n  118 _note_, 119\n\nPythagoras, an advocate of government by aristocracy, 21\n\n\nQuetelet, 589\n\nQuicherat and other authorities on Joan of Arc, 558\n\nQuinet, cause to which he attributes the breakdown of the French\n  Revolution, 595\n\n\nRadowitz, Doellinger's debt to, 402\n  potential liberality of, 414\n\n_Rambler, The_, 447\n\nRambouillet, French Ambassador at Rome, 136\n\nRanke, Leopold von, calm indifference of historical deductions of, 390\n  estimate of Macaulay by, 391\n  old age of, friendship with Doellinger, 396\n  style of, admiration of Doellinger for, 393\n  _cited_ on judgment of time, 221;\n    on Luther's conservatism, 161;\n    on Machiavelli's merits, 228\n\nRattazzi, impoverishing policy of, 509\n\nRaumer, source of historical work of, 386\n\nRauscher, Cardinal, opponent of Papal infallibility, 532, 533, 535, 544\n\nRavignan, 400\n\nRaymundus, Doellinger's opinion of works of, 382\n\nRaynaud, account of Machiavelli's death, 215\n\nRebellion punished by death by the Church in the Middle Ages, 216-19\n\nReformation, the, discredited by the Peasants' War, 155\n  Doellinger on, 393-7\n  early character of, 153\n  effect of, on governments, 41, 42, 43\n\nReformers, Protestant, attitude of, to polygamy, 159, 160\n  common origin of their views on State policy, 150-51\n  intolerance of, exemplified, 184\n  Saxon and Swiss, reason of their political differences, 173, 177\n  on the treatment of heresy, 183\n  views of, on Church and State, 181\n  writings of, 150\n\nRegicide (_see also_ Assassination _and_ Murder) urged by mediaeval\n  Church to remove tyrants, 217-18\n\nReid, 593\n\nReisach, Cardinal, _see_ Munich, Archbishop of\n\nReligion in relation to the American government, 584-5\n  decay in belief of, among Greeks, 8\n  development of, attitude to, of Bossuet, 591\n  how it influences State policy, 150\n  principles of, non-sectarian study of, unknown in seventeenth\n  century, 45-46\n  reconcilable to liberty, dispute on, 467-9\n  toleration in, early advocates of, 52\n  turned into engine of despotism after\n  Reformation, 44\n  true, definition of, 197\n    differentiation of, from false, standards for, 449\n\nReligions, multiplicity of, danger from, limited, 250\n  suppression of, due to danger from doctrine in pagan and mediaeval\n  times, 251;\n    only necessary when practice of, dangerous to State, 251\n\nReligious crime, civil jurisdiction over, Beza's views, 146\n  disabilities, danger of, greater than multiplicity of religions, 250\n    in Ireland made an engine of political oppression, 253\n  intelligence and zeal, office of, 460\n  liberty, defined, 151-2\n    effect on, of State control, 151-3\n    incompatibility of, with unity frequent, 252\n    in Maryland, 187\n    and political emancipation, connection of, not accidental, 292\n  persecution and slavery, 64\n  toleration, _see_ Toleration\n\nRenan, Ernest, commendation by, of dishonesty in politics, 225\n  rank of, as writer in France, 417\n\nRenouvier, Flint's agreement with, 594-5\n\nRepresentation separability from taxation, origin of this principle\n  in Middle Ages, 39\n  in America, restrictions on, 579\n\nRepresentative assemblies, methods of strengthening, 97\n  government, earliest proclamation and enactment of, 26\n  not discussed in classical literature, 25, 26\n  origin of, in Middle Ages, 39\n\nRepublic, French (the first), its title and what it signified, 277\n\nRepublic of 1848 (France), of what school the triumph, 590\n\nRepublican views of Zwingli and Calvin, 42\n\nRepublicanism of Athens, 68\n  primitive, germ of Parliamentary government, 32\n  true, defined, 277\n\nRepublics, government by, good opinion of Louis Philippe as to, 56, 90\n  of Poland and Venice, contrast between, 49\n\nResistance, doctrine of, 54\n  law of, as manifested in the American Revolution, 586\n\nRestoration, French (under Louis XVIII.), effects of, on Nationality, 282\n  the true, that of 1688., 580\n\nRettberg, 420\n\nRetz, Cardinal de, opposed to, yet ignorant of, Machiavelli's\n  doctrines, 218\n  _cited_ on political adaptability, 219\n\nRevocation of the Edict of Nantes, an inconsistency, 170;\n    not approved by Innocent XI., 147;\n    remarks on, 266\n\nRevolution, identity of, and difference from, passive obedience, 162\n    one of the worst enemies of civil freedom, 300\n    its most powerful auxiliary, present day, 276\n    Protestantism favourable to, 181\n  American--\n    not inspired by the belief of the Pilgrim Fathers, 584-5\n    nothing of, in common with the French, 580\n    spirit of, 580, 587\n    supreme manifestation of the law of resistance, 586\n  of 1848, double debt to, of Nationality, 287\n  the French--\n    abolition by, of traces of national history, 278\n    the (1789), causes leading up to, 85, 86, 87\n    change produced by, how effected, 271;\n      consequences, 272\n    characteristics peculiar to, roots far back in history, 280\n    denounced by Burke, 219\n    doctrines of, adversary of the old despotic policy, 276\n    essential difference between it and others, 271\n    injured by its religious policy, 86\n    ethnological character of, 277, 278\n    nothing in it in common with the American revolution, 580\n    revival of a conquered race, 241\n    no constructive idea given rise to by it, 241\n    substance of its ideas, 280\n    theory of equality disastrous to liberty, 88\n  of 1688, \"divine right of freeholders\" established by, 54\n    principles of, anticipated, 179\n    statesmen of, represented as ancestors of modern liberty, 53\n\nRevolutionary leaders of 1789, ideas of, contrary to idea of\n  Nationality, 281\n\nRevolutions, three phases of those subsequent to the Congress of\n  Vienna, 284-5\n\nRhode Island, State of, rise of, 187\n\nRichelieu, Cardinal, historical insight of, 409\n  method of dealing with Protestants, its effect, 116\n  on subjection of nation, 48\n  _cited_ on historical deductions based on success, 221\n\nRiehl, on abstract ideas and their power, 585\n\nRimini, 559\n\nRio, 432; _cited_ on Doellinger as a theologian, 399\n\nRitschl, 389\n\nRobespierre, fate of, 401\n  terrorism of, causes of production of, 262\n\nRobinson _cited_ on progressive revelation, 592\n\nRochelle, La, siege of, 113 _note_, 115, 118\n\nRoman conquest of Europe and its consequences, 277 _et seq._\n\nRomans, as makers of history, 240\n  persecution of Christians by, reasons for, 196, 198\n\nRome, _see also_ Church, the conflicts with, 461-91\n    attitude at, towards Doellinger, 410-14\n    and the Church at variance, 516-17\n    popularity of Machiavelli in, 214\n    statesmen of, permeation of, with Greek ideas, 16\n  Court of, reformation demanded by Strossmayer, 536\n    religious power of, as the preservation of civilised Europe,\n    Lea's view, 568\n    and the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, its complicity (believed in),\n    128, 131;\n      reception at, of the news of, 132, 134, 135\n    result of Vatican Council, scorn of opposition, 544\n    ties of English Catholics with, tightened by Wiseman, 438\n    Wiseman's Address at, criticised by _The Patrie_, 439;\n      his reply and rebuttal of \"covert insinuations\" in _The Home and\n      Foreign Review_, 439-40;\n      reply of that publication, 440;\n      statement of facts concerning the Address, 444\n  Emperors of, above legal restraint, 78, 79\n    pleasure of, force of law possessed by, 31\n  Empire of, creation of the Roman people, not by usurpation, 77, 78\n    better services rendered by, to cause of liberty than by the\n    Republic, 15\n    seat of, transferred from Rome to Constantinople, 30\n  heathen, persecution by, how justified, 186\n  Republic of, conversion into monarchy by Julius Caesar, 15\n    influenced by precept and example, 13, 14\n    ruined by its own vices, 74\n\nRoscher, intercourse of, with Doellinger, 403\n\nRosmini, 381;\n    disciples of, 314\n  Doellinger's pupils sent to, 381\n  erudition of, 400\n\nRossi, De, 431; Doellinger's guide in Rome, 411\n  on epistles of St. Ignatius, 419\n  friendship with Cardinal Reisach, 501\n\nRouen, clergy of, desirous of Huguenot extirpation, 142\n  reluctance of Carouge to allow Huguenot\n  massacre at, 119\n\nRousseau, Jean Jacques, cause of his power as a political writer, 84\n    definition of the social compact, 57\n    effects of his teaching on Marat, 57, 58\n    proclaimer of equality, 273\n    vindication of natural society by, 263\n    on true sense of country, 294\n\nRoyalism, execution of Charles I., a triumph for, 51\n\nRoyalty exalted into a religion (_see also_ Divine Right of Kings\n  _and_ Passive Obedience), 47\n\nRuinart, credulous criticism of, 420\n\nRuemelin, 589; on political expediency, 222\n\nRussia, and its adoption of Greek Church, 333-4\n  attitude of, to Vatican Council, 508\n  quarrel of, with Pius IX., 493\n\nRussian nationality attacked by Napoleon I., 281\n\n\nSaccarelli, Doellinger's tribute to, 387\n\n\"Sacerdotal Celibacy,\" 561;\n    and the _Droit du Seigneur_, 566\n\nSacred College, the, attitude of, on the St. Bartholomew, 140\n\nSalviati's eminence at, 110\n\nSadolet, Paul, _cited_, on massacre of Vaudois of Provence, 217\n\nSailer, 402\n\nSt. Augustine, _cited_, 197;\n    in praise of Seneca, 25\n\nSt. Bartholomew, the Massacre of (_see_ Massacre of St, Bartholomew),\n  44, 101;\n    not a crime of the people, 43\n\nSt. Bernard, 434\n\nSt. Brieuc, agreement with Gratry's views, 537\n\nSt. Cyprian, intolerance a rule of life from the days of, Lea's view, 562\n\nSt. Dominic as the First Inquisitor, 553;\n    so entitled by Sixtus V. 558\n  attitude of, to heretics, 428, 554\n  house of, at Toulouse, headquarters of the Inquisition, 552\n\nSt. Elizabeth of Hungary, strange choice by, of a confessor, 570\n\nSt. Francis of Assisi, Lea's view of, 569\n\nSt. Germains, Peace of, advantages of, to French Huguenots, 105;\n    alarmist views on, of Salviati, 110\n\nSt. Irenaeus, language of, which might be taken as Arian, 592\n\nSt. Louis, Archbishop of, on the Immaculate Conception, 545\n  on Papal Infallibility, 533, 545;\n    his protest against the doctrine, 499\n\nSt. Martin, mysticism of, 376;\n    study of, by De Maistre, 377\n\nSt. Poelten, Bishop of (Fessler), and the proposed discussion of Papal\n  Infallibility at Vatican Council, 500-501, 513\n  reform urged by, 495\n  Secretary of Vatican Council, 501\n\nSt. Raymond and the Inquisition, 556-7\n\nSt. Sulpice, Catechism of, Lea's deductions from, 570\n  opposition of, to Lamennais's Ultramontanism, 463\n\nSt. Thomas Aquinas, later exponent of Plato's _Politics_, 72\n  _cited_ on the relation of Kings to the People, 36, 37\n\nSainte Beuve, C.A., _cited_ on political fatalism, 221\n\nSte. Hilaire, Barthelemy, _cited_ on Machiavelli's politics, 219\n\nSalvianus on social virtues of pagans, 33\n\nSalviati, despatches of, on the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, 132, 133;\n    as utilised by Acton, and his predecessors, 102\n  on the \"spirit of a Christian,\" as shown by Charles IX. at the Massacre\n  of St. Bartholomew, 122\n  on the true reason for the Navarre marriage, 135\n\nSamarra, the, 569\n\nSan Callisto, Doellinger's visit to, 411\n\nSan Germano, treaty of, 555\n\nSan Marino, 386\n\nSanta Croce, Nuncio, information derived from, on the Massacre of\n  St. Bartholomew, 102;\n  on the plans framed at Bayonne against Huguenots, 108 & _note_, 108-9\n  alleged report by, on the intended Huguenot massacre, 131-2\n\nSarpi, Paolo, _cited_ on political honesty, 213\n\nSavigny, 380;\n    influence of, on Doellinger, 376\n  leading doctrines of, 594\n  source of historical works of, 386\n\nSavonarola, Girolamo, 556\n\nSavoy, motto of its abortive rising in 1834., 286\n  not surprised by the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, 109\n  Duke of, and the marriage of Coligny, 110\n\nSay, J.B., _cited_ on political virtues, 219\n\nSchelling, 403\n  estrangement of, from Doellinger, 381\n  mythology of, 405\n  _cited_ on collective thought, 585-6\n\nScherer, Edmond, _cited_ on progress, 221\n\nSchlegel, H.W.F. von, classed as Ultramontane, 451\n  studied by Doellinger, 375\n\nSchleiermacher, F.E.D., Doellinger on, 375\n\nSchmalkald, Confession of, on excommunication, 158\n\nSchomberg on Charles IX. and the provincial massacres, 120\n\nSchopenhauer, metaphysics of, Doellinger's love for, 381\n\nSchottmueller, 421, 574;\n    conclusions of, on the trial of the Templars, 563\n\nSchrader, Clement, reputation of, 502\n  on commission of preparation for Vatican Council, 500\n\nSchwarzenberg, Cardinal, manager of German elections to Commission\n  on Dogma, 529, 532\n  Cardinal, opposition of, at Vatican Council, 525-6\n  on Papal Infallibility, 544\n\nSchwenkfeld, Kaspar von, his doctrines condemned by Melanchthon, 167\n\nScience, demands of, on its students, 453\n  liberty of, in the Church, 461-91\n  liberty in, questioned through Frohschammer's excommunication, 477\n  power of, to act upon religion, not foreseen in 1679., 595\n\nScience and religion, reconciliation of, 462;\n    denied by Frohschammer, 462;\n    accepted by Lamennais, 462-3\n\nScience, truth essential in, 449\n  German, great services to intellectual liberty, 469\n  religious, definition of, 389\n\nScientific truth, certainty of essentials for understanding, 458\n\nSclopis, Count, on character of Machiavelli, 226\n\nScotland, Doellinger on Presbyterianism of, 337\n  triumph of Reformation in, over the State, 43\n\nScott, Hope, consulted by Doellinger, 395\n\nSega, Bishop of Piacenza and Nuncio, attitude of, to murder for the\n  glory of God, 139\n\nSelf-government, faculty of, opposed to tradition of antiquity, 31\n  in a great democracy, how alone preservable, 277;\n    that kind of, which constitutes true republicanism, 277\n  modern political liberty the result of, 253\n\nSelf-sacrifice, renovation of society on principles of, 58\n\nSeneca, his elevated sentiments praised by St. Augustine, 25\n  religious knowledge of, 406\n  views of, 73\n\nSermoneta, 131\n\nServetus, Michael, 430;\n    his condemnation approved by Melanchthon, 167;\n    and by other Reformers, 175, 184-5;\n    defended by Calvin, 181-2;\n    but not politically justified, 184-5\n\nSeward, W.H., on the rights sought by the revolting Americans, 587\n  praise by, of Hamilton's statesmanship, 581\n\nShakespeare, study of, Doellinger's motive for, 432\n\nSherman, General, 579\n\nSicily, the Inquisition in, 1224., 553-4\n\nSickel, 422\n\nSidney, Algernon, character of, 53\n  slight knowledge of Machiavelli's works, 218\n\nSieyes, 277; council suggested by, 96\n  doctrine of, 57\n\nSigismund, King of Poland, Beza's advice to, on Socinianism, 146\n\nSigonius, Doellinger's gratitude to, 393\n\nSimancas, annotations of, on Campeggio's commentary, 559-60\n\nSimpson, 432\n\nSixtine Chapel, Vasari's paintings in, illustrative of the Massacre\n  of St. Bartholomew, 135\n\nSixtus V., Pope, attitude of, to the murder of the Guises, 121-2\n  Doellinger's estimate of, 424\n  St. Dominic entitled by, the First Inquisitor, 558\n  a strong Pope, 138\n\nSlavery and democracy, 63\n\nSlavery, general extinction of, in Europe in Middle Ages, 39\n  principle of, implicit opposition of Stoics to, 25, 26\n    and practice of, rejected by Essenes, 26\n\nSlavonic races, 245\n  stationary national character of, 241\n\nSmith, Adam, doctrine of, 57\n  known in France, 219\n\nSmith, Goldwin, on the Catholic Church in Ireland, 259\n  on history, success only attribute acknowledged by, 223\n\nSmith, Sir Thomas, on English attitude to the French, after the\n  Huguenot massacres, 144 & _note_\n\nSocialism, baneful alliance of, with democracy, 92, 93, 98\n  and slavery, 63\n\nSocieties, Epicurean notion that they are founded on contract for\n  mutual protection, 18\n\nSociety and government, association and correspondence of, 265\n\nSociety of Jesus (_see also_ Jesuits), Arragonese influence in\n  its constitution, 557\n\nSocinians, reason of their persecution, 169\n\nSocinus, partial advocate of toleration, 52\n\nSocrates, 406; on democracy, 71\n  death of, crowning act of guilt of Athenian government, 12\n  method of, essentially democratic, 71\n  records of, 409\n  view of, on laws of country as sole guide of conduct, 18\n\nSolon, decentralisation of power advised by, to remedy social\n  disorders, 7\n  doctrine of, that political power should be commensurate with\n  public service, 8\n  influence of, on democracy, 66, 68\n  revision of laws of Athens by, 6\n  good results of his forethought in providing for revision of\n  Athenian constitution, 7, 8\n\nSophists, doctrine of, 70\n  their ideas of utilitarianism, 17\n\nSorbin, Confessor of Charles IX., and the Orleans massacres, 126;\n    his account of the death of Charles IX., 126-7 & _note_\n  on premeditation of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, 112\n\nSoto, on political conscience, 216\n  _cited_ on assassination as a political resource, 213\n\nSpain (_see also_ Cadiz Constitution), abortive monarchy of (1812), 89\n  absolute monarchy in, due to appropriation of tribunal of Inquisition, 41\n  designs against, of Charles IX., utilisation in, of the Protestants,\n  105, 116\n  effect on, of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, 124, 143\n  and the Inquisition, 152\n  Montalembert's journey to, 425\n  national character of rejection of French forces and ideas, 281\n  Parliamentary system of, origin, 34\n  reasons for persecution in, 170\n  and representation on Vatican Council, 507\n  view in, of the planned character of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, 124\n\nSpinoza, advocate of passive obedience to the State, 48\n  interpreter of Machiavelli, 228\n\nSpirit of the American Revolution, what it was, 587;\n    what it was not, 584-5\n\nSpondanus, Bishop, on Gregory XIII., reasons for permitting the Navarre\n  marriage, 128\n\nStahl, J., 589; injustice of Doellinger to, 391\n\nStahr, A., _cited_ on historical deductions, 221\n\nStanley, Dean, considered Vatican Council important to all\n  denominations, 493\n\nState, the (_see also_ Church and State), authority of, excessive in\n  ancient times, insufficient in Middle Ages, 4\n  free constitution of, free action of Church a test of, 246\n  limitations of its duties, 3\n  and religious liberty, 151-3\n  sole authority according to modern theory, 151\n  sole care of the Absolutists, eighteenth century, 273\n\nState Church, its connection with the community, 260\n  of Ireland, Goldwin Smith on, 259\n\nStates, boundaries of, as coincident with Nationalities, J.S. Mill on, 285\n  classic, taking from citizens more than they gave them. 17;\n    vice of, 16\n  small, drawbacks of, 295\n\nStates-General, the, and the Inquisition, 570\n\nStein, 282\n\nStenzel, G.A.H., _cited_ on political expediency, 222\n\nStephen, Leslie, _cited_ on philosophy of history based on truth, 223\n\nStewart, Dugald, praise of Machiavelli, 224\n\nStoics, their emancipation of mankind from subjugation to despotic rule, 24\n  their implied opposition to principle of slavery, 25, 26\n  their teaching nearest approach to that of Christianity, 24, 25\n  views of, 73\n\nStolberg, classed as Ultramontane, 451\n\nStory, on Tocqueville's views of the American Constitution, 576\n  _cited_ on _The Federalist_, 581\n\nStrappado, the, 569\n\nStrasburg, Senate of, reluctance of, to act harshly to Catholics, 172\n\n_Stratagemma, Lo, di Carlo IX._, and its author, 129\n\nStrossmayer, Bishop (upon Turkish frontier), 548;\n    absence of, from vote on decree (involving acceptance of\n  Infallibility), 543\n  demand for reform made by, 536\n  opposition of, at Vatican Council, 522\n  protest of, to Vatican Council altered before presentation, harmony\n  restored by, 542\n  on authority of Vatican Council, 541\n  on the dogmatic decree, 527, 533\n  on ungenerous treatment of Protestants, 541\n\nStrozza, Philip, 113 _note_\n\nStuart, House of, misrule of, only temporarily foiled under Cromwell, 50\n  upholders of supremacy of kingship over people, 47\n\nSuarez, revision of MS. of, in Rome, 428\n\nSuffrage, limitations of, effects of, 96\n  restricted, not always a safeguard of monarchy, 2\n  universal, of what school the triumph, 590\n\nSunderland, 410\n\nSura, Bishop of, 519\n\nSweden, bishops of, and political assassinations, 217\n  religion in, Doellinger on, 341-2\n  working of Protestant theory of persecution in, 170\n\nSwift, Jonathan, 409\n\nSwiss, the, true nationality of, 294-5\n  Constitution (1874), significant work of modern democracy, 91\n  reformers, unlikenesses of, to the Saxons, 173\n\nSwitzerland, _see_ Historical Philosophy in France and French Belgium and\n  Calvinism in, Doellinger on, 338-9\n  Cantons of, influence in days preceding French Revolution, 50\n  progress and success of democracy in, 91\n  and the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, 120, 124-5\n\nSybel, H. von, historical style of, 384\n  _cited_ on historical deduction, 221\n\nSylla, invested with dangerous powers, 77\n\nSyllabus, the Archbishop of Paris led by, to urge moderation, 526\n  the, designed to restore authority to the Church, 492\n  opinions of Pius IX. collected in, 496-8\n  opposition controlled by, 524\n  Prince Hohenlohe opposed to discussing state maxims of, at Vatican\n  Council, 503-4\n  Symmachus, _cited_, 196\n\nSynods, Acts of, alleged tampering with, as affecting doctrine of\n  Infallibility, 499\n\n\nTacitus, confession of, respecting mixed constitutions, 20\n\nTaine, Henri, Doellinger's ambiguous praise of, 417\n  influence of, on Doellinger, 434\n\nTalleyrand de Perigord, Charles Maurice, 100\n  signs of sympathy with idea of nationality shown by, 282-3\n  _cited_ on Hamilton, 581\n\nTapparelli, classed as Ultramontane, 451\n\nTaxation of American colonists, opposition of Lords Chatham and\n  Camden to, 55\n  exemption of clergy from, 34\n  inseparable from representation, origin of this principle in Middle\n  Ages, 39\n\nTaylor, Sir Henry, on necessity for political subtlety, 219\n\nTeligny and the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, 107\n\nTempesti on Catherine de' Medici and the Massacre of St-Bartholomew, 148\n\nTemplars, Doellinger's lecture on, 433\n  trial of, Lea's conclusions on, 552, 563\n\nTemporal power of the Papacy, 312-13, 352-62, 367-71, 412-16, 422-5\n  antagonism to, 315-16\n  Doellinger on, 301-74\n\nTerror, the, _see_ Reign of Terror\n\nTertullian, language of, which might be taken as Arian, 592\n\nTeutonic races, missionaries the channel of conversion to Christianity, 245\n  union political more than religious, 244\n  State and the Church, quarrel between, cause of revival of democracy, 80\n  tribes, Christianity readily accepted by, 199\n\nTheiner, A., early views of, superseded, 429\n  _Life of Clement the Fourteenth_, by, 411\n  Permission to publish acts of Council of Trent, refused to, by the\n  Pope, 431\n  skill of, as editor, 421\n  as source of information on the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, 102\n  views of, on Jesuits not in agreement with Doellinger, 411-12\n\nTheognis on domination of oligarchies, 6\n\nTheology in Germany, unique and scientific, 317, 347-51, 376, 471-82\n  schools of, at Munich, 375, and Tuebingen, 376\n\nTheramenes as statesman, 70\n\nThiers, Adolphe, opinion of Machiavelli's works, 227\n\nThou, De, and the charge against the Bordeaux clergy, 127 _note_\n  on the Navarre marriage, 128\n  reproached for condemning Huguenot massacres, 147\n\nThucydides on reformed government at Athens, 12\n\nTocqueville, 400;\n    indictment brought by, against democracy, 93\n  influence of, on Doellinger's politics, 414\n  on the inspiration of the American Revolution, 584\n  on the need for two chambers in a Senate, 575-6\n  _cited_ on the American federal constitution, 576\n  on democracy and absolute government, 239\n\nToledo, Councils of, framework of Parliamentary system of Spain, 34\n\nToleration, advocacy of, by William Penn, 84\n  of Anabaptists, varying views of Reformers on, 157, 164, 176\n  anonymous tract on, against Calvin, 182\n  Calvinism a danger to, 180\n  cause and effect of decline of Protestantism, 255\n  early attitude of Reformers towards, 153-55, 168\n  in the early church, 186\n  Edict of, deceitful, of Charles IX., 117\n  Maryland an example of, 187\n  as a political principle, reasons for and against, 252\n  religious, in Poland, 103\n  forced upon Protestantism, 187\n  Protestant theory of, 151\n  and religious liberty, 152\n  traditional, attitude to, of Lea, 562\n  views of Beza on, 146\n\nTommasini, praise of Machiavelli, 226\n\nTorquemada, 569\n\nTosti, on Papal Liberty, 313\n  on Temporal Power, 412\n\nToulouse, and the Albigenses, 556\n  Count of, and the Council of Arles, 565\n\nTreitschke, _cited_ on Political Morality, 222\n\nTrent Commissioners and prohibited works, 215\n\nTrent, Council of, 111, 175\n  intolerance of, reformed by Vatican Council, 493-4\n  spirit of, 138\n\nTreviso (province), story of, 387\n\nTridentine Reformation, _see_ Trent, Council of\n\nTronchin, on Voltaire's death, 215\n\nTuebingen, heresies of, 381\n  school of positive theology at, 376, 377\n\nTurgot, attempted reforms of, 85\n  _cited_ on political expediency, 220\n  views of, on single or double form of Legislature, 576\n\nTurin, Court of, policy of, 445\n\nTurks, Charles IX.'s pourparlers with, 104\n\nTwesten, _cited_ in support of Machiavelli's policy, 229\n\nTyrol, movement in, against Napoleonic institutions, a national one, 281\n\n\nUltramontane school, eminent writers of, two peculiarities of, 451\n  supersession of, 452\n\nUltramontanism, _see also_ Doellinger extreme, considered to be keystone\n  of the Church, by Lamennais, 462-3\n\nUnited States, _see_ America\n\nUnity, aimed at, by English Catholics, 438\n  change of constitution effected by, in Italy and Germany, 225\n  of faith in France, enforcement of, aim of the Court, 117\n  liberty sacrificed to, by Machiavelli, 229\n  in relation to nationality, 287, 289\n  and religious liberty, incompatibility of, frequent, 252\n    necessity for, in Church and State, 252\n  religious, in relation to religious freedom, 152\n\nUniversal suffrage, of what school the triumph, 590\n\nUniversity of Paris and the Inquisition, 570\n\nUssher, Archbishop, advocate of passive obedience to kings, 47\n\nUtilitarianism in classical ages, 17\n\nUtrecht Psalter, story of, 551\n\n\nVaissete, 565\n\nValois, Margaret of, _see_ Navarre, Queen of\n\nVasari, paintings by, in the Sixtine Chapel, of the Massacre of\n  St. Bartholomew, 135\n\nVatican Council, 431, 492-550\n  constitution of, 501-11\n  convened by Pius IX., 492;\n    approbation of Pius IX.'s action in convening, 492-511\n  decree of, dissatisfaction with, 531\n  discussion on validity of dicta of, 548\n  Infallibility, doctrine of, its victory over opposition, 543\n  letter from German bishops to, on doctrinal points, 517\n  methods of, reformed to involve admission of Papal Infallibility, 539\n  opening of, 511\n  opposition at, 492-511, 525-9\n  preparations for, 492-511\n  proceedings of, 527-50\n  programme of, discussed in _The Reform of the Church in its Head and\n  Members_, 494-6\n  representation on:--\n    by Belgium, 507\n    by England, 506\n    by France, 504\n    by Germany, 505\n    by Italy, 508\n    by Portugal, 507\n    by Spain, 507\n  Strossmayer prevented by, from protesting, 541\n\n_Vaticinia Pontificum_, Lea's knowledge of, 560\n\nVauban, Marshal, 48\n\nVaudois, the, of Provence, extermination of, by Louis XII., 217\n\nVavasour, Sir Edward, acquaintance of, with Doellinger, 388\n\nVenice, extinction of, as State, 283\n  not surprised by the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, 109;\n    the event celebrated at, 125\n  and political murders, 213, 214\n  withdrawal of, from the League, 105, 107\n  republic of, nature, 49\n\nVergennes, _cited_ on political judgment, 227\n\nVergniaud, on the laws in relation to the will of the people, 276\n\nVerona, centre of historical work, 387\n\nVespucci, 562\n\nVeuillot, Louis, Doellinger on, 428\n  and the _Droit du Seigneur_, 566\n  Montalembert, _cited_ on, 428\n\nVico, 590\n\nVienna, Congress of, dynastic interests\n    predominant at, 282-3\n    effects of, on ideas of nationality, 283\n\nVienne, Inquisition at, and Servetus, 184\n\nVillari, admiration of Machiavelli, 226\n\nVinet, 591\n\nVirginia and Maryland, 187\n\nVisconti family, models for Machiavelli, 212\n\n_Vitae Paparum Avenionensium_, utilised by Lea and others, 559\n\nVives, toleration taught by, 570\n\nVoltaire, profane criticism of, 218\n\n\nWaldenses, analogy of Arnold of Brescia with, 559\n  why they opposed persecution, 563\n\nWaldus, 558\n\nWalpole, Horace, _cited_ on political scruples, 219\n\nWalsingham, English ambassador in France, his reports on the Massacre\n  of St. Bartholomew, 101, 107, 115-16\n  condemnation by French Catholics as a whole, 143\n\nWar, art of, no national feeling in, till after 1789., 274\n  of Deliverance, new forces evoked by, 282\n  of 1859, troubles of the Papacy after, 412-14\n\nWars of religion, end of, 274\n\nWashington, George, 579\n  political example of, 586\n\nWaterloo, 282\n\nWebster, 584\n\nWeingarten on St. Anthony's life and origin of monasticism, 420\n\nWesel, English Calvinists at, 170\n\nWesley, John, Doellinger's tribute to, 395\n\nWestminster, Archbishop of, at Council of Bishops, 1867., 500\n  on Papal Infallibility, 528\n\nWestphalia, Peace of, and Roman ambition, 323, 324\n\nWhigs, English, and their continental counterparts, attitude of,\n  after Waterloo, 282\n\nWilberforce, Archdeacon, Doellinger consulted by, 395\n  Samuel, Bishop of Winchester, story of, 551\n\nWilkins, 421\n\nWill or sovereignty, the, of the people (_see also_ Democracy),\n  as criterion of right, 271;\n    as above the law, 276;\n    idea of, the parent of idea of nationality, 277\n  theory of nationality involved in, 287\n\nWilliam III., King of England, and massacre of Glencoe, 218, 410\n\nWindelband, _cited_ on national government, 227\n\nWindischmann (elder), Doellinger's esteem for, 381\n  public indifference to, 430\n\nWinkelmann on the Inquisition, 426\n\nWirtemberg, left by Moehler, after publication of _Symbolik_, 377\n  Duke of, and the Huguenot refugees, 145\n\nWiseman, Cardinal, 424, 436\n  Doellinger consulted by, on mediaeval authorities, 390-91\n  influence of, on the Church of England, and on the Oxford movement,\n  437-8\n  literary standing of, 437, 438\n  position of, universal and local in Catholicism, 437\n  relations of, with English Catholics, 437, 438\n  view of, on English theology, 380\n  work of, at Oscott, 438\n  on the \"covert insinuations\" of the _Home and Foreign Review_, 439-40;\n    the editor's defence of that publication, 440 _et seq._\n\nWitt, De, murder of, 410\n\nWittelsbach, house of, contests of the Empire in the, 275\n\nWuerzburg, Bishop of, reform urged by, 495\n  (city) Doellinger and Platen at, 375\n\nWycliffe, John, difference between his teaching and Luther's, 271\n\n\nXimenes, Cardinal, and the Inquisition, 570\n\n\n_Young Europe_, Mazzini's evolution of _Young Italy_, 286\n\n_Young Italy_ and Mazzini, 286\n\n\nZanchini, an Inquisitor, leading authority of the fourteenth century, 559;\n    _cited_ by Lea, 560\n\nZeller, _cited_ on Anti-Machiavel policy in Prussia, 227\n\nZimmerman, Wilhelm, and Machiavelli's policy, 227\n\nZuniga, Juan and Diego, 123\n  denunciation by, of French treachery even to heretics, etc., 144\n\nZuerich, the question of toleration in, 174, 175\n\nZwickau, Saxony, prophets of, Melanchthon's attitude towards, 164\n\nZwingli, Ulrich, influence of, on politics, 81;\n    influence of environment on him, 173, 177\n  theory of government, including persecution, 173-4\n  republican views of, 42\n\nZwinglian schism, influence of, on Luther, 155\n\nZwinglians, the, condemned by Melanchthon, 167, 170 _note_\n\n\n_Printed by_ R. & R. CLARK, LIMITED, _Edinburgh_.\n\n\n\n\nBY THE SAME AUTHOR.\n\n_8vo. 10s. net._\n\nHISTORICAL ESSAYS\n\nAND STUDIES\n\nBY THE LATE LORD ACTON, D.C.L., LL.D., ETC. REGIUS PROFESSOR OF MODERN\nHISTORY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE\n\nEdited with an Introduction by JOHN NEVILLE FIGGIS, M.A., and REGINALD\nVERE LAURENCE, M.A.\n\nCONTENTS\n\nI. Wolsey and the Divorce of Henry VIII.\nII. The Borgias and their Latest Historian.\nIII. Secret History of Charles II.\nIV. The Civil War in America.\nV. The Rise and Fall of the Mexican Empire.\nVI. Cavour.\nVII. The Causes of the Franco-Prussian War.\nVIII. The War of 1870.\nIX. George Eliot's \"Life.\"\nX. Mr. Buckle's \"Thesis and Method.\"\nXI. German Schools of History.\nXII. Talleyrand's Memoirs.\nXIII. The \"Life\" of Lord Houghton.\nXIV. A History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation.\nXV. A Short History of Napoleon I. The First Napoleon: A Sketch,\nPolitical and Military.\nXVI. Mabillon et la Societe de l'Abbaye de Saint-Germain-des-Pres\na la Fin du XVIIe Siecle.\nXVII. A History of England, 1837-1880.\nXVIII. A History of the French Revolution.\nXIX. Wilhelm von Giesebrecht.\n\nMACMILLAN AND CO., LTD., LONDON.\n\n\n\n\nBY THE SAME AUTHOR\n\n_8vo. 10s. net._\n\nLECTURES ON MODERN HISTORY\n\nBY THE LATE LORD ACTON, D.C.L., LL.D., ETC.\n\nREGIUS PROFESSOR OF MODERN HISTORY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE\n\nEdited with an Introduction by JOHN NEVILLE FIGGIS, M.A., and REGINALD\nVERE LAURENCE, M.A.\n\nCONTENTS\n\nIntroduction.\n\nInaugural Lecture on the Study of History.\n\nLECTURES ON MODERN HISTORY\nI. Beginning of the Modern State.\nII. The New World.\nIII. The Renaissance.\nIV. Luther.\nV. The Counter-Reformation.\nVI. Calvin and Henry VIII.\nVII. Philip II., Mary Stuart, and Elizabeth.\nVIII. The Huguenots and the League.\nIX. Henry the Fourth and Richelieu.\nX. The Thirty Years' War.\nXI. The Puritan Revolution.\nXII. The Rise of the Whigs.\nXIII. The English Revolution.\nXIV. Lewis XIV.\nXV. The War of the Spanish Succession.\nXVI. The Hanoverian Settlement.\nXVII. Peter the Great and the Rise of Prussia.\nXVIII. Frederic the Great.\nXIX. The American Revolution.\nAppendix I.--Letter to Contributors to the Cambridge Modern History.\nAppendix II.--Notes to Inaugural Lecture.\nIndex.\n\nMACMILLAN AND CO., LTD., LONDON.","title":"The History of Freedom, and Other Essays","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":248986}